9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount on account of the bar of unjust enrichment - It is settled law that the bar of unjust enrichment cannot be got over on the sole ground of the price of the goods remaining constant during the period around the date of sale of the goods - E/257/2009 - A/213/2009-WZB/C-IV/(SMB) - Dated:- 20-5-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.K. Agarwal, SDR, for the Appellant. Smt. Padmavati Patil, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal filed by the department is against grant of refund of Rs. 2,16,698/- being Central Excise duty plus Education Cess. The original authority had, in adjudication of a show-cause notice, held the above amount to be refundable but credited the same to the Consumer Wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals). The counsel has also produced what is called "extract of rectified General Ledger Account pertaining to appeal filed for refund of duty." She has also produced a copy of the relevant invoice. It is submitted that there is no change of price of the goods with reference to the date of the invoice. In other words, the price of the goods was the same after that date as it was before that date. According to the learned counsel, as per the "rectified General Ledger Account" maintained by the respondent at the material point of time, the amount of differential duty claimed as refund was a "receivable" and therefore the burden of duty should be deemed to have remained with them. In this manner, the ld. Counsel has made a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid invoice, I find that the respondent paid excise duty of Rs. 2,86,875/- plus Education Cess of 5737/- totalling to Rs. 2,92,613/-. The invoice is primary evidence of this amount having been recovered by the respondent from the buyer. The burden was high on them to prove to the contra, i.e., to show that the burden of duty was not passed on to the buyer vide Sections 12A and 12B of the Central Excise Act. This burden has not been discharged in this case. The finding to the contra contained in the impugned order cannot be accepted. The claim of the respondent is that they retained the above amount with them without passing on the burden to the buyer, by making adjustments in their General Ledger Account, which adjustment is refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
