9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and Chemicals (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. ESPI) are the manufacturers of oil of olay on job work basis for M/s. Procter and Gamble India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. PGIL). The appellants. PGIL filed a refund claim dated 7-5-1993 for a sum of Rs. 25,33,669.45, claimed to be the excess duty paid by ESPI, the job worker of the appellant on the product oil of olay from 2-4-1989 to 31-3-1990. The refund claim was based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints v. UOI, reported in 1990 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) decided along with ESPI's own case. Later, the claim was revised to Rs. 24,33,502.63. The jurisdictional authority rejected the claim of PGIL and decided the claim of ESPI by cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, there is no dispute regarding the entitlement to refund. M/s. ESPI are the job workers of the appellants. They had actually cleared the goods on payment of duty to PGIL. Hence PGIL have borne the duty. Since there was no price variation, the burden of duty has not been passed on to the buyers. As regards time bar she referred to para 15 of the Order-in-Original dated August 1995 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs and referred to the observation that both the claim of ESPI and PGIL are treated as one for the purpose of this refund. Hence she argued that the refund claim of ESPI should be treated as the refund claim of the appellant for purposes of limitation under the Central Excise Act. 5. The learned DR said that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovered by M/s. PGIL from their stockist/dealers. Even after lowering of the assessable value in terms of Supreme Court in M/s. Ujagar Prints, PGIL selling price to their stockist remained the same, which implies that the incidence of excess excise duty, which was earlier paid to the central excise exchequer is pocketed by PGIL which is their additional profit. Hence the unjust enrichment clause is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and on this count also, the refund is not admissible. Thus viewed from any angle, PGIL are not eligible to the refund". There is no infirmity in the above reasoning. In view of the above observations, we are of the view that the appellants are not entitled for the refund claim. Hence we rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
