2002 (8) TMI 432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)]. This is an appeal against the rejection of refund of deposit made in pursuance to the Tribunal s Order under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The same has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds that an amount was collected from the customers and therefore the refund would amount to unjust enrichment. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s originally not demandable in terms of the order of the Tribunal, held that the refund itself cannot be made in view of the amended provisions of Section 11B. Since the appellants, accordingly to the Assistant Collector, have passed on the incidence of duty to their buyers and are, therefore, not entitled to any refund. 4. I have dealt with similar case of the same appellants in Appeal No. 31/9 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are not applicable in light of Bombay High Court decision in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.) and Allahabad High Court in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 29 (All.) and Commissioner Hyderabad Trade Notice No. 86/2001, dt. 19-11-2000 has been issued in this connection. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be upheld. 4. In view of our above findings, the orders of lower authorities are set aside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X