9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative, for the respondent [Order per S.S. Kang Vice President] - Heard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby refund claim of the appeal was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 3. Contention of the appellants is that the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund but the same was credited to the consumer welfare fund on the ground that refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Contention of the appellants is that the Tribunal in the following decisions has held that once the amount is shown as recoverable from the department in the balance sheet, then refund of such amounts cannot be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment:- (i) CCE Vs. N.G. Thakkar & Sons - 2004 (166) ELT 115; (ii) Jaipur Syntex Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2002 (143) ELT 605; (iii) Hero Honda Motors Ltd. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e International Ltd., reported in 2005 (188) ELT A81 (S.C.) to submit that the view taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court that the amount deposited by the assessee is to be treated as 'deposit' and not 'duty' is not correct. Contention of the revenue is also that onus is on the appellants to show that burden of duty has not been passed on. 5. We find that in this case admitted fact is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. We find that the Tribunal in various decisions relied upon by the appellants has taken a view that in case balance sheet amount of refund was shown as recoverable it has been taken as established that the appellants have not passed on extra duty burden but have borne the same themselves. In these circumstances, as the balance sheet which is as per record under the Companies Act showing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
