1999 (6) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Respondents. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - In these five appeals preferred by Revenue, arising out of common Order-in-Appeal dated 24-5-1996 issue involved is whether principle of unjust enrichment is applicable where the products in respect of which refund of duty is claimed has been captively consumed. 2. When the matters were called, no one was present on behalf of any of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ining as to how much duty paid on the tapes, has been passed on to the buyers of HDPE sacks and therefore, even in the ratio of Solar Pesticides [1992 (57) E.L.T. 201], it will not be difficult for the buyers of the HDPE sacks to claim the refund of duty. Finally he mentioned that the Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. [1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896], has held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s no question of passing on incidence of duty to anyone else since the goods imported are not sold to anyone else. Hence he gets the refund. The Bombay High Court further held that the Scheme of Unjust Enrichment introduced by amendment of the Act envisages the direct transfer of burden of duty along with the sales of the same goods, which were imported to the buyers. In the case of captive consum .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X