2004 (6) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pondent. [Order]. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the impugned order, issue relates to the applicability of unjust enrichment to the refund claim of Rs. 5,25,290/- of the respondents. 2. The adjudicating authority allowed the refund but directed that it should be deposited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) has modified that order by directing the paym .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he respondents that this increase was a regular feature with them and they did not pass on the incidence of duty to the customers, appears to had not been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of the ratio of law laid down in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) and Union of India v. Solar Pesticides P. Ltd., 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 wherein it has been obs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X