9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants are manufacturers of sulphuric acid. They had cleared 510.26 MTs of sulphuric acid to a customer at the rate of Rs. 1,300/- PMT in the month of May, 1997. Again, in the month of June, 1997, they cleared 722.595 MTs of sulphuric acid to the same customer at the rate of Rs. 1,250/- PMT. In respect of the first clearance, a mistake as to unit pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the strength of this debit note also, the appellants raised a refund claim on the department. These claims amount to Rs. 8,941/-. The department proposed to reject this claim vide show cause notice dated 7-1-98 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act as well as on the following factual grounds : (a) In respect of the first clearance, it was not proved that the contracted sale price was Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - LB). Hence the present appeal. 3.Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel submits that the grounds raised by the department in the show cause notice for rejecting the refund claims were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the department is not aggrieved by this decision of the appellate authority. It is his further contention that the ground on which the appellate authority rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the bar of unjust enrichment. It is further submitted by ld. SDR that the show cause notice had proposed to reject the appellant's refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, thereby proposing to reject the claims on the ground of unjust enrichment. 4.After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that the factual grounds raised for rejecting the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the appellants have held out their customer's debit notes as documentary evidence of the burden of duty not having been passed on to the customer. Whether such debit notes are conclusive proof to get over the bar of unjust enrichment is an issue which is no longer res integra. Both the Tribunal's Larger Bench decisions in Grasim Industries (supra) and S. Kumar's (supra) are clear to the effe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
