TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department till the disposal of the finalisation of their classification list and as such, the principle of unjust enrichment has no application to the case of the appellants. The learned counsel has relied the following cases in order to support of his contention :- 1. Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (T). 2. S. Kumar's Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 217 (Tri. - LB) = 2003 (55) RLT 399 (Tri.-LB). 3. Grasim Cement v. CCE - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 694 (Tri.-LB). 4. ONGC v. CCE - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 829 (Tri.) = 2003 (59) RLT 751. 5. Continental Chemicals India Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 183 (Tri.) = 2003 (55) RLT 30. 6. Alstom Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (168) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecame payable at the rate of 10%. Under these circumstances, they have filed refund claim. 6.The contention of the learned Counsel that duty was never collected actually from the buyers at the rate of 20% ad valorem and as such, they are entitled to the refund of the excess paid duty without reference to the principle of unjust enrichment, cannot be accepted. In the invoices during the period in dispute at the time of clearance of the goods to various customers, the duty was shown at the rate of 20%. From this it can be safely inferred that they charged duty from the customers at that time. At no stage, they issued any corrigendum informing the customers that duty payable by them was at the rate of 10% ad valorem. The fact that payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, as the buyers had not actually made payment of price of the goods to them. The subsequent issuance of the credit notes by them to their customers, is insignificant so as to hold that they had not passed on the incidence of duty. In this context, reference may be made to the Larger Bench's decision in the case of S. Kumar's Ltd. v. CCE, Indore (supra) on which the learned Counsel has also placed reliance by referring to its Para 3. In that case, after collection of duty, the manufacturer made payment to the buyers through cheque and the Larger Bench has specifically and categorically ruled that after having passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers subsequent issuance of credit notes by the manufacturer will not change the position a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
