9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appellant filed this appeal against order-in-appeal whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected. In this case the dispute is in respect of the excess duty paid in respect of the samples cleared by the appellant. The appellant initially paid duty under Section 4(a) of Central Excise Act thereafter filed a refund claim within the period of limitation relying upon the circular dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e samples - Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE reported in [2004 (168) E.L.T. 70 (Tribunal) = 2004 (64) RLT 451] and Bombay High Court decision in the case of Cipla Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 61 and in the case of M/s. Pharma Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2004-TIOL-952-CESTAT-MAD. 4. The contention of the Revenue is that the finding of Commissioner is that the cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on the ground that no evidence is taken into consideration whether the appellant included the cost of physician samples in the cost of regular pack. In respect of the unjust enrichment, we find that in the decisions relied upon by the appellant it is specifically held that principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable in respect of the samples which were distributed free of cost. In these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
