9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt ORDER Per Mr. Anil Choudhary The Appellant M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., is in Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 33-CE/GZB/2009 dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise & S.Tax, Ghaziabad, whereby the rejection of refund is upheld on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The brief facts are that the appellants have imported formulation/medicines f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the partner of the C & F Agent. Show-cause notice dated 08.05.2003 was adjudicated vide OIO No.21/31.03.2004 by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Ghaziabad, wherein demand of duty amounting to Rs. 16,45,396/- was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakh each was imposed on the appellants and the C & F Agent, M/s Niti Enterprises. The appellants filed appeals wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion/medicines, imported for trade. The said order had attained finality. Whether the refund of the said amount attracts the doctrine of unjust enrichment when admittedly the goods in question (medicines) were destroyed due to expiry of time, and no transfer of title ever took place. 4. Heard the parties. 5. Having considered the rival contentions I find that the amount in question was deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 976-77. The Asstt. collector had rejected the refund claim of the Appellant holding that the claimant had already charged and collected the duty amount from its customers and as such, it was not entitled to claim the said amount and accordingly the amount refundable was transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund. Under such circumstances the Apex Court held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
