2012 (5) TMI 330

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his certificate does not support the claim of the appellants that they have not passed on the extra duty to their customers as part of the price of cement manufactured by them. - refund rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. - C/395 to 398/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2012 - Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, J. Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant, for the appellants Shri Parmod Kumar, SDR, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dit can be taken. As such, taking credit of the same does not arise and therefore, insisting on a certificate that no such credit has been taken is not warranted. 3. The Ld. SDR has also confirms that the credit of coal cess cannot be taken. Hence, the insistence that the appellants should produce a certificate that they have not taken the credit of the cess paid by them was not called for in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... heir customers as part of the price of cement manufactured by them. Moreover, the appellants have not produced the balance sheet showing the extra duty amount as outstanding receivable amount from the department. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below denying the refund amounts on the ground of unjust enrichment need no interference. All the four appeals are therefore rej .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X