9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest of justice, the matter is required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority - Following decision of Union of India Vs. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. (2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Decided in favour of Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s amount or non- inclusion in the cost of the end product. In this context, he cited the following case laws: (i) Union of India Vs. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. - [2000 (116) ELT 401 (S.C.)]; (ii) Bazpur Co-Op Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II - [2010 (262) ELT 450 (Tri. Del)]; and (iii) Commissioner of Cus. & Central Excise, Bhopal Vs. Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. - [2011 (24) STR 692 (Tri. Del.). 4. Shri Willingdon C., Ld. Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand argued as under: (i) That the Commissioner (Appeals) has ruled out the applicability of unjust enrichment on the grounds when the goods in question were not sold, and when duty has been paid during the course of investigations. In this contex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld take it within its ambit not only the passing of the duty directly to another person but also cases where it is passed on indirectly. This would be a case where the duty paid on raw material is added to the price of the finished goods which are sold in which case the burden or the incidence of the duty on the raw material would stand passed on to the purchaser of the finished product. It would follow from the above that when the whole or part of the duty which is incurred on the import of the raw material is passed on to another person then an application for refund of such duty would not be allowed under Section 27(1) of the Act. 20. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid observations would be applicable in the case of captive consum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
