9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from OIA No. 42/2005-CE dated 20-10-2005 by which the refund of part amount of Rs. 3,42,872/- has been rejected on the presumption that there is a bar of unjust enrichment. The appellants relied on a large number of judgments before the Commissioner (Appeals). Although he has recorded the submissions in five big paragraphs but he has not dealt with any of the aspects of the citations. He has mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces. It is the contention of the appellants that mere mention of duty amount in the invoice is not a criteria as the duty was cum-duty and the duty has not been passed on to the customers. 2. In this connection, the learned Counsel relies on a large number of rulings. 3. The learned JDR submits that once the duty has been shown in the invoices, a presumption arises that the duty has been colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of CCE, Mangalore v. Manjunath Food Packaging P. Ltd. - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 166 (Tri. - Bang.) it has been held that when duty has been paid under protest and the buyer of goods have been made clear that they would not pay the additional duty, then in such a situation, there was no bar of unjust enrichment. This ruling also refers to a number of earlier judgments of the Tribunal. In the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made clear to the customers that they were eligible for the benefit of Notification. The facts disclose that the appellants have paid the duty under protest. They were not in a position to recover the amounts of duty as the duty price is treated as cum-duty. They had mentioned the duty in the invoice only for clarity purpose. They have discharged the burden that they have not collected the duty fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
