9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of duty on 15-3-2001. They claimed the excess duty paid during the interregnum. The lower authorities determined the excess amount paid treating the sale price as cum-duty-price effective from 1-3-2001 as inclusive of 42% of the revised value. For working out the excess duty paid, the cum-duty price of Rs. 2400/- was taken as 142% of the assessable value during the interregnum and the admissible refund amount as the difference between the 60% of the value before 1-3-2001 and 42% of the value after 1-3-2001, both worked out on the basis of the same cum-duty-price all through. The impugned order held that the refund of Rs. 57,750/- made did not involve unjust enrichment. In the appeal, it is argued that refund would involve unjust enric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent has not established that the excess duty paid to the exchequer had not been passed on to its customers to qualify for the refund claimed. 6. The following decisions of the Tribunal dealt with cases of similar facts. The extract of each order containing the ratio is extracted. (a) India Agencies v. CC, Chennai - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 507 (Tri.-Chennai) "After considering the submissions, we find that Section 28C of the Customs Act requires the price of goods shown in sales invoice or like document to include the duty paid thereon. Section 28D presumes that every person who has paid duty on any goods under the Act shall, unless the contrary is proved by him, be deemed to have passed on the full incidence of such duty to the buyer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r client (the refund-claimant) and such documents, per se, cannot be accepted singularly and conclusively as evidence against the latter's unjust enrichment, though they could be corroborative evidence in a given case." (b) Sona Udyog v. CCE, Indore - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 413 (Tri.-Del.) 'On the unjust enrichment issue, it has been clearly found by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that no evidence was adduced by the appellants to show that the burden of duty on the subject clearances for the material period had not been passed on to their customers. This finding of fact has not been challenged in the present appeal, nor has any evidence been adduced before us by the appellants to discharge their burden of proof under Section 11B read with Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
