9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee to adduce evidence against the bar of unjust enrichment is yet to be discharged. I have not found any evidentiary material on record against the bar of unjust enrichment in this case. - E/787/2008 - A/437/2009-WZB/C -IV/SMB - Dated:- 27-7-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) Shri R. Parthasarathy, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.P. Periera, JDR, for the Respodent. [Order] - This appeal filed by the assessee is against the rejection of the refund claim for Rs.1,66,240/-. During the material period, the assessee was clearing their products at factory gate and, in some cases, they incurred the cost of transportation of the goods to the buyers premises. From some of the buyers, the assessee recovered transportation ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee on excess transportation charges recovered in the same manner from their buyers, the Division Bench of the Tribunal granted stay of operation of an appellate order, on the strength of the Supreme Court's judgment in Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v. Collector - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 (SC). I am told that the said case (appeal E/1559/07) i pending with the Division Bench. 3. The learned JDR has argued in support of the orders passed by the original and first appellate authorities. 4. In his rejoinder, the learned Counsel has pressed for re in respect of duty of P.s. 63 for which refund claim was filed within time. He has tac l admitted that the rest of the claim is time-barred. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sportation charges and also passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers. Where the assessee wanted the refund of this duty, and the department proposed to deny this relief to them on merits as well as on the ground of unjust enrichment, it was incumbent upon the assessee to show, in the first instance, that the excess tram portation charges were not a part of the transaction value under Section 4 and further that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the buyers. In the, instant case, neither of this was proved by the assessee. Even at this second appellate stage, the assessee has not made any attempt to discharge the above bur den of proof. On the other hand, they have admitted that duty was paid on the excess transportation cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
