9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) rejecting the party s claim for refund of the amount of Rs.8,90,103.17, which had been deposited by them towards the short collection of duty on demand, on the ground that the party had passed on the incidence of duty to the buyer and unjustly enriched themselves. 2. In the appeal, the appellants have stated that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in their case as this was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 (Tribunal) = 1998 (78) ECR 146 (Tribunal). (d) C.C., Mumbai v. TELCO Ltd. - 1998 (79) ECR 369 (Tribunal). The balance-sheets for the relevant years showing that wool waste was a major raw material for the manufacture of their prducts was also prduced for scrutiny. 3. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made in the appeal. The short issue to be decided is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the Madras High Court decision in the case of Indo Swiss Synthetic Gem manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1995 (52) ECC 53 (Mad) where it was clearly held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not be applicable in the case of the goods imported by actual users. I hold that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable and refund in this case is admissible to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
