9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sample has not been passed on to any other persons Moreover, the appellant have shown the amount of duty as receivable in their books of account and also submitted CA certificate to this effect. Therefore, taking a stock of all these undisputed fact, it can be conveniently concluded that the appellant have not passed on the incidence of duty paid in access for which the refund is sought for by the appellant. Accordingly, the refund of Rs.58,59,456/- is not hit by the mischief of unjust enrichment. Initially the appellant have filed a refund claim of duty paid at the rate of 6% on the ground that the physician sample is eligible for exemption from whole of the duty. However, as of now the issue of rate of duty i.e. 6% in terms of Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby it is established that the excise duty paid on the removal of free of cost physician sample has not been passed on to any other person as the same has been accounted for as receivable in the appellant s books of account. He also submits that since the appellant have not sold the physician sample as the same was cleared free of cost neither the value of the goods nor the duty was recovered by the appellant, for this reason also the incidence of duty has not been passed on. Accordingly, the refund was wrongly rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the following judgments:- Savita Oil Technologies Ltd V. CCE, Belapur- 2017 (358) ELT 331 (Tri.- Mum.) Rama Cylinders pvt. Ltd. V. Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal can be disposed of accordingly. 4. Shri Rajesh R Kurup Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 5. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that in appeal No. E/10942/2018 the only reason for rejection of refund claim is that the same is hit by unjust enrichment. We find that firstly, the appellant have not sold the physician sample, as the same was cleared free of cost so not only the duty even the principle amount towards the cost of physician sample has not been passed on to any other persons Moreover, the appellant have shown the amount of duty as receivable in their books of account and also submitted CA ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
