9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment submitted that the only ground on which the Department has come in appeal is impugning the correctness of the order of the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the Respondents herein would not be entitled to refund of the amount on application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. It was urged that if the Respondents had passed on the incidence of tax on the consumers, the Respondents would not become entitled to claim the refund amount even if it is not leviable under law. The learned SDR urged that in the impugned order the learned Collector (Appeals) has found in favour of the Respondents against the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and remanded the issue for re-consideration by the original authority with ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his issue has catalogued the ruling of the Supreme Court and the various High Courts and the Tribunals and for the purpose of convenience, the relevant portion of our order in the case of CCE, Madras v. Sahu Cylinders and Udyog Private Ltd. decided on 15-5-1986 reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 133 (Tri.) is extracted below: 3. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of-R. Abdul Quader and Company v. Sales Tax Officer, 2nd Circle, Hyderabad, reported in AIR 1964 SC 992 has held that if a dealer has collected anything from a purchaser which is not authorised by the taxing law, that is a matter between him and the purchaser, and the purchaser may be entitled to recover the amount from the dealer. But unless the money so collect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deny refund of tax even if the person who paid it has collected it from his customers and has no subsisting liability or intention to refund it to them or for any reason it is impracticable to do so . The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 917 (Bom.) has adverted to various Division Bench rulings of the Bombay High Court such as Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 468 (Bom.), Wipro Products Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 531 (Bom.) and held that the State is under obligation to refund money which have been recovered without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
