9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order]. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal the issue relates to the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment to the refund claim of the appellants. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the case of the appellants for two reasons; firstly, the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The dispute regarding the classification of these pump sets arose between the parties as the appellants wanted the same to be classified under Tariff Heading 84.83 carrying duty at a lower rate, whereas the Department sought the classification under TH 84.79 which carries higher rate of duty. The appellants in order to avoid blockage of clearances at the hands of the Department, filed the classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the case of the appellants. In this context, reference may be made to the Apex Court judgment in Sinkhai Synthetics Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 17 wherein it has been so ruled. This judgment has been followed by the Tribunal in a number of cases. Reference may be made to Tecil Chemicals Hydro Power Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 136 and Executive Engineer, Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot shown any change in the price at which they sold the goods. The price remained the same on which the appellants were selling the goods before the disputed period. There is no dispute with the observations of the Apex Court in Mafatlal case 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 that non-mention of the duty element in the invoices separately would not lead to a conclusion that the duty element had not been passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
