2004 (11) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... claim of Rs. 2,87,374/- is credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellant failed to discharge the onus that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customers. 2. The contention of the appellant is that in this case the Revenue raised the objection that notional interest in respect of the advance received from the customers is to be added to the assessable value of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re always recovered from their customers, the claim of appellant is not available. The contention is that as the amount is to be mentioned in somewhere in the record and the same is mentioned as selling expenses, which are paid from their profit account, therefore, refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground that burden of duty has been passed on to the customers. 3. The contention of the reve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eriod in dispute and that was after the clearance of the goods, therefore, in view of the decision of the Tribunal, the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable. Further the appellant is keeping this amount in their account as sale expenses and some were deducted out of their profit, therefore, the refund claim cannot be denied on this ground also. The impugned order is set aside and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X