9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to evince that the incidence of duties paid by them had not been passed on to their customers; apparently the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was not, of itself, considered sufficient justification. It was also recorded that the amount discharged as duty liability for the period from May 2005 to March 2007 was given an accounting treatment only in the balance sheet of March 2011 and has been held to be a belated attempt to claim that the obligation had been discharged despite duty having been borne by the customers. The first appellate authority vide order-in-appeal no. P-I/MMD/207/ 2012 dated 23rd October 2012 directed the release of sanctioned amount to the applicant. 2. It appears that the first appellate authority wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Central Excise & Customs [2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC)] to point out that the amendment to section 11 B of Central Excise Act, 1944 has accorded legal recognition to the well-established, and forcefully articulated, principle of equity that no person can retain or claim an undue benefit. That the transfer of incidence of duty does not have to be direct but indirectly incorporated in the cost charged from the customer and suffices invoking the bar of unjust enrichment is sought to be sustained by reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd [2000 (116) ELT 401 (SC)]. 4. We have heard Learned Authorised Representative and Learned Counsel for respondent at length. It is not in do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that would suffice. The circumstances and the evidence furnished by the claimant of refund would have to be looked into within the framework of the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' that was given legal recognition in section11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision in re Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd provides us with the principle thus '48....... Before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and as such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss.' 6. Respondent has furnished the certificate of Chartered Account. Its contents have not been controverted. The argument of Revenue that the failu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
