9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the order dated 22-9-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The appellants had filed a refund claim of Rs. 66,835.52 before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Division Alwar, consequent upon a decision in their favour by the Tribunal in its order dated 5-6-1987. The Assistant Collector, however, issued a show cause notice as to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uly considered the evidence produced by them by way of their accounts, affidavits and Chartered Accountant s certificate produced to show that the burden has not been passed on to the customers. He also relied upon the Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Adarsh Metal Corporation v. Union of India reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 483 to say that the bar of unjust enrichment will not be applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11B can be applied only prospectively. In that judgment the Supreme Court reiterated and followed its earlier judgment in the case of Union of India v. Jain Spinners - 1992 (61) E.L.T. 321 wherein the Supreme Court held that the amended provisions of Section 11B are retrospectively applicable to all the orders passed by the High Courts or the Tribunal under Section 11B(3) of the Act. It is fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assistant Collector also examined the invoices and gate passes submitted to see whether it could be established therefrom that the burden had not been passed on. But the Assistant Collector had found that the appellant had neither shown assessable value in the gate passes nor had shown the excise duty separately in the relevant invoices. They had also stopped production of the disputed goods after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
