9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals), Jaipur. By the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority. The Assistant Commissioner, Chittorgarh by his order dated 22-12-2008 held that the refund which was granted to the appellants by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 25-5-2003 was correctly granted and refunded to the appellants. 2. The appellants are the manufacturers of grey cement. During the period 1986-87, there was substantial increase in the demand for cement in the country. The Central Government announced various incentives for the manufacturers of the cement to encourage the increase in manufacturing capacity of the cement industry in the country. Under one of such scheme, consequent to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the matters came to be remanded and in case of the appellants matter, when the same was taken up for hearing by the Assistant Commissioner, Chittorgarh, the appellants raised two points, firstly non-applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment in view of the said notification in question and secondly in any case the appellants had not passed over the duty burden to the consumers. The Assistant Commissioner by its order dated 22-12-2008 answered the first point in favour of the appellants, while the second point was answered against the appellants. Being aggrieved with the said decision, the department preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. The appellants on the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or not in terms of said notification. In fact, the remand order itself discloses that the matter was remanded only to deal with the issue as to whether the duty element had been passed over to the customers or not. Such a question can arise essentially on application of principles of unjust enrichment. In other words, by the very direction of the Supreme Court, the authority was required to decide as to whether the duty element had been passed over to the customers or not because of applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court thus had already held that the principle of unjust enrichment was attracted in case in hand. In view of the said decision, it was not open for the lower authorities to deal with the said i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
