9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mon order inasmuch as common issue is involved. The refund claim of the appellant arising out of the year ending turn over discount has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground of unjust enrichment by observing that where credit notes are issued to the customers, subsequent to clearance of the goods, the same are not sufficient to hold that the burden of duty has not been passed on to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be deemed to have the effect of upholding the order of the Tribunal and as such binding precedent. Having regard to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Ramesh Food Products - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 310 (S.C.) = 2005 (66) RLT 4 (SC) in support of their arguments that dismissal of appeal at preliminary stage of hearing by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be held to be affirmat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in the case of Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. was not admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by taking note of the other decisions and holding that such dismissal is of binding character, the Larger Bench held against the assessee. I find no reasons to take a different view on the same grounds. It is also seen that the Larger Bench in S. Kumars Ltd. and Grasim Industries Ltd. were followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, I find in para 2 that the Tribunal has observed "However, the barrier of unjust enrichment rebuttal presumption has to be crossed by the assessee." As such, it is not correct on the part of the assessee to say that the Tribunal has held that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable in their own case under similar circumstances. Further, in the present case, the appellant has nowhere pleaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
