2008 (2) TMI 861

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase as the respondent had not collected anything over and above than what was mentioned as price of the goods and the additional duty has been paid by the respondent itself without passing on the burden to the ultimate buyer - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Deepak Verma and K.L. Manjunath, JJ. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. Papegowda, counsel for the appellant on merits of the appeal. 2. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amended from time to time and other relevant notifications issued in this regard in the succeeding years. 5. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent for denying exemption during the period from 5-10-2001 to 31-3-2002 on the ground that its factory was not located in the rural area. Thus, SSI exemption in respect of the branded goods of others could not be available to it. In view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he opinion that there is no merit and substance in this appeal. The tribunal has recorded a finding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not arise in the case as the respondent had not collected anything over and above than what was mentioned as price of the goods and the additional duty has been paid by the respondent itself without passing on the burden to the ultimate buyer. Only after .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X