2004 (4) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Member (J)]. In this appeal preferred by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal dismissing their claim for refund of the duty, the issue relates to the applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Acrylic/Cotton Yarn. They lodged four refund claims of different amounts, in all of Rs. 10,78,056/- on the ground that they had born .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hese have been filed on the ground that they paid excess duty on the excisable goods at the time of clearances of goods from the factory on stock transfer basis to the depot. When they submitted their claims, they also filed documents indicating their sale policy and marketing pattern, besides 52A invoices. The prices indicated in the invoices issued by the depot to the dealers/buyers were inclusi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the invoice by the manufacturer did not lead to the conclusion that he was not passing the incidence of duty to the customers nor did it flow therefrom that he was absorbing the duty himself. Since the appellants have failed to prove that they had not passed on duty burden to the customers, their refund claims by applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment, have been rightly rejected by the lower .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X