2005 (5) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticides P. Ltd. reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401. The issue whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of Customs Act is applicable to imported capital goods used captively for manufacture of excisable goods is applicable, is referred to the Larger Bench. 2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of notice. Heard ld. SDR. 3. In this case, the appellant filed a refund claim in pursuance to the Final Order No. C/403/93-D, dated 18-11-1993 passed by the Tribunal. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant failed to show that burden of the duty has not been passed on to the customers. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (116) E.L.T. 401 was distinguished on the ground that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respect of inputs and not in respect of capital goods. 6. We find that the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the decision of Constitutional Bench in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 held that Section 27 of the Act is, in a sense, complete code by itself, dealing with the claim for refund of duty. The procedure provided by Section 27(1) is applicable in ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... upreme Court we answer the question of law referred of the Larger Bench in favour of the Revenue by holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to the imported capital goods used captively consumed for the manufacture of excisable goods. A contrary view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries (supra) is not good law hence overruled. 7. Now, we take up the appeal as no other issue is involved in this appeal. 8. The contention of the appellant in the appeal memo is only that the burden of duty has not been passed on to their customers as the price of the excisable goods remains same after payment of duty and thereafter. 9. The contention of the Revenue is that as per Council of the Institute of Cost and Work .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X