9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the light of the binding case law, it is established that the respondent had passed on the excess duty, refund of which was claimed. Therefore, refund of the said amount would involve unjust enrichment. It is ordered that the duty found to have been paid in excess may be sanctioned and deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed - E/907/2005/MAS - 906/2008 - Dated:- 21-8-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Appellant. Shri S. Raghu, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. Respondents M/s. Sindhur Beedi Works, produced un-manufactured tobacco and cleared at a cum-duty price. On 1-3-2001, rate of duty on un- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enrichment in these cases. 4. The ld. JDR reiterates the grounds in the appeal. 5. I have considered the case records and the submissions. The facts of the case are that the respondents paid the same amount of duty during the material period and collected the same price from the customers as prior to the reduction in rate of duty to 42%. As far as the assessee is concerned there was no change in the rate of duty between 1-3-2001 15-3-2001. It was not aware of the reduction. It collected the same price and the same duty from its customers before and after the change on 1-3-2001. The duty payment to Government also did not change during the material period. By continuing the same cum-duty price, after the reduction in rate, assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty where such refund is other wise admissible. The immediate question is whether the Chartered Accountant's certificate is conclusive evidence to rebut the above presumption. None of the decisions cited by learned Counsel has held that, on the strength of such a certificate alone, the presumption of unjust enrichment could be rebutted. We are of the considered view that a Chartered Accountant's certificate such as the one produced by the appellants is no substitute for the evidence stemming from an invoice. The price mentioned in each of the invoices involved in this case is deemed to be a cum-duty price under Section 28C. This would mean that the buyer of the goods assumed the duty burden also. There is no evidence on record to indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
