TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) has reversed the Order-in-Original and rejected their refund claim of rupees 2,05,032/- by applying the principle of unjust enrichment. 2. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 3. The appellants filed claim for the refund of the above said amount on the ground that under the Prompt Payment Discount Scheme, which was uniform in nature and well known to the distribut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incidence of duty to the buyers in terms of Section 11B of the Act. But in the instant case, it stands amply proved that incidence of duty for the refund of which the appellants have prayed for, had not been passed on by them to the buyers. They cleared the goods under the duty-paid invoices to their distributors under the prompt payment discount scheme which was known to the distributors before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants stands fully covered by the decisions of the Tribunal - (i) in Alstom Ltd. v. C.C.E., Allahabad, 2004 (168) E.L.T. 511 (T) and (ii) Universal Cylinders Ltd., 2004 (178) E.L.T. 898 (T) wherein, under similar circumstances, the refund was allowed by the Tribunal to the assessee and the principles of unjust enrichment was held to be not attracted. Both the decisions of the Tribunal stand also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otes to the buyers would not lead to an inference that incidence of duty had been borne by the supplier of the goods himself, is not applicable to the case of the appellants, in the light of the facts detailed above. 6. In the light of discussion made above, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief as per law. (Dictated and pronounced i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
