2004 (7) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Revenue appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue relates to applicability of clause of unjust enrichment. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The appellants undertake manufacturing of certain goods on behalf of their principal manufacturer M/s. Adishakti International Pvt. Ltd. It is admitted position that the appellants were entitled to refund claim of Rs. 4,21,036/-. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Pvt. Ltd. had not passed on the incidence of higher payment of duty to their respective customers in terms of Section 11B(2), the claim is not hit by the clause of unjust enrichment and allowed the appeal. The Revenue appeal challenges the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I have considered the rival contentions. The issue to be decided is as to whether or not the Commissioner (Appeals) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the High Court s order as extracted in Para 6 of the Tribunal s judgment referred to above, reads as under :- Where the claimant is a manufacturer, the clause applicable would be clause (d) of the proviso to 11B(2). That clause refers to duty of excise paid by the manufacturer, if he had not passed on incidence of such duty to any other person . 6. On the basis of the analysis made by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X