9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a decision of lower authority Concerned authority after undertaking all the details decided that appellant is liable for refund X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. It was also contended that the refund sanctioned is not tenable and also hit by unjust enrichment. Further Show Cause Notice was issued for rejecting a refund claim for ₹ 6,04,188/- for the period from January 2003 to March 2003 under the provisions of Section 11B(d) of Central Excise Act, 2001 read with Section 11D. The lower authority confirmed the proposals in the Show Cause Notices. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants. In such circumstances, there cannot be any unjust enrichment. To put it differently, when the goods are cleared from the factory at higher value, higher duty is paid to the Revenue but when the gods are sold to the buyers at lesser value, lesser duty burden is passed on to them. Thus, the differential duty is borne by the appellant. Hence, unjust enrichment will not arise. 3.1 There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed therein in the light of he following decisions: (i) Voltas Ltd. v. CCE & C - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 355 (T) (ii) Sree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 631 (T) (iii) Doothat Tea Estate Kanoi Plantation (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Shillong - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 386 (T) (iv) La Opala RG Ltd. v. CCE, JSR -2002 (149) E.L.T. 164 (T) 3.3 In view of the above observations, it is clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
