9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (8) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim based on unjust enrichment. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenges the rejection of the appellant's refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The appellant, a manufacturer of "Swami" brand of Snuff, argued that despite paying duty at a higher rate due to a classification dispute, the price for the product was fixed at the same amount by the brand name owner. The appellant contended that the provision of unjust enrichment should not apply in their case since different manufacturers selling the same goods at the same price were subjected to duty at different rates. The appellant argued that the manufacturer paying duty at the higher rate was bearing the additional duty amount and not passing it on to buyers. The appellant relied on specific legal decisions to support their contention. In response to the appellant's submission, the learned SDR pointed out that the appellant's argument was not sustainable based on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. The SDR specifically referred to a paragraph in the judgment highlighting that uniformity in price before and after assessment does not necessarily indicate that duty incidence has not been passed on to the buyer. The SDR emphasized that the relevant factors had not been examined by the authorities below, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claim for refund. The Tribunal analyzed the appellant's claim, emphasizing that the appellant's argument was solely based on selling goods at the same price as other manufacturers who paid duty at a lower rate. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to demonstrate how they had absorbed the higher duty amount. Citing the observations of the Apex Court, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim of unjust enrichment remained unsubstantiated and was correctly rejected. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.
|
