9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der India (P) Ltd. [2006 (8) TMI 210 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE] - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/2049/2010-SM - Final Order No. 26718/2013 - Dated:- 9-10-2013 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Ms. Vijaya Prakash, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Haavanur, Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is a Central Society. It supplies raw material to their primary societies on sale basis and receive back Biris on purchase basis. The Central Society is responsible for sale of finished goods. 1.2 The Central Excise duty on Biris was increased from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 10/- per thousand Biris vide Notification No. 3/2007, dated 1-3-2007. But the rate of duty was once again reduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the customers. The refund granted was upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. We are in full agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal in terms of the judgment reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 510. We do not find any legal errors in the order passed by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is based on facts and no unjust enrichment is seen. The order of the Tribunal requires no interference. The same is confirmed. The appeal stands rejected, without being admitted. 2.2 In this case the appellants were not showing the duty separately in their invoices and it is their claim that prior to 1-3-2007 and after 31-7-2007 and also in between the price of biris remained same irrespective of the amount of duty paid mainly w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decisions the Tribunal had considered the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Mulder India (P) Ltd. relied upon by the learned counsel. 3.2 Another decision relied upon by the learned AR was the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.)]. It was submitted that para 48 would be relevant. Para 48 of the decision is reproduced as under : From the above discussion, it is clear that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is based on equity and has been accepted and applied in several cases. In our opinion, therefore, irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of the Act, the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
