9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pass the bar of unjust of enrichment - reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras Versus M/s Addison & Co. Ltd. [2016 (8) TMI 1071 - SUPREME COURT] - the appellant is entitled for refund claim and as they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1465/2011 - A/60330/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 3-3-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Ms. Krati Somani, Advocate - for the appellant Sh. Atul Handa, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok JIndal 1. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the buyer that differential duty has not been paid to the appellant. In the absence of any contrary views, the debit notes issued by the buyer is evidence to pass the bar of unjust of enrichment in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Addison Addison Co. Ltd.(Supra) wherein the Hon ble Apex court has observed as under: 35. The respondent-Assessee is a 100 per cent Export oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing cotton yarn. The respondent filed an application for refund of an amount of ₹ 2,00,827/- on 14.08.2002 on the ground that it had paid excess excise duty at the rate of 18.11 per cent instead of 9.20 per cent. The Assessee initially passed on the duty incidence to its customers. Later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Chartered Accountant and the credit notes raised by the Assessee regarding the return of the excess duty paid by the Assessee, there is no dispute in this case of the duty being passed on to any other person by the buyer. As it is clear that the Assessee has borne the burden of duty, it cannot be said that it is not entitled for the refund of the excess duty paid. In view of the facts of this case being different from Civil Appeal No.7906 of 2002, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is entitled for refund claim and as they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment. 8. With these terms, the impugned order rejecting refund claim qua unjust enrichment is set aside. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
