9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application and submitted that the Revenue authorities have not implemented the order passed by this Tribunal. He has also stated that the Revenue has not filed any appeal against the order and as such the order has become final. Shri K.K. Bhatia, the learned Jt. CDR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue and pleaded that in the present matter there is unjust enrichment and as a similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal should await the decision. In this connection he referred the matters CCE, Meerut v. Electric Controls & Switchboards (P) Ltd. reported in 1991 (34) ECR 21J and Union of India v. Lalit Bhaichand Ravani reported in 1991 (34) ECR 61J. In reply, Shri Kapoor pleaded that the applicants vide letter dated the 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's office Period for which claim was preferred Amount 1. 28-11-1975 21-12-1973 to 27-02-1974 29,362.96 2. 12-12-1975 01-03-1974 to 31-05-1974 37,594.96 3. 01-01-1976 01-06-1974 to 30-9-1974 24,763.22 4. 02-01-1976 01-10-1974 to 31-12-1974 27,984.44 5. 03-01-1976 01-01-1975 to 27-02-1975 29,191.27 6. 17-01-1976 01-03-1975 to 30-09-1975 57,019.73 2. On scrutiny, it came to notice, that the duty amount paid by M/s. Shanker Novelties Glass Ind., Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as "the party") on the packing material has inturn been collected by them from the customers. Therefore, it was felt that any refund of Central Excise duty will tantamount to 'Unjust Enrichment', of the party, as the burden of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,000/-, was set aside. Further it has been the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases, other than the above cited case (for example in the case of M/s. Shivashankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana [AIR 1980 S.C. 1037], that those who have recovered the tax, cess, levy etc. from others have no right to claim its refund from the authorities for in such case the excess amount paid whether under mistake of law or fact, does not come from the pockets of those who first paid or from whom it was first recovered by the authorities. It comes from the pockets of others and is paid by the ultimate consumers. It is they alone who are entitled to recover it and refund of it to the manufacturer amounts to their 'Unjust Enrichm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
