2006 (3) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laim any amount by way of refund as the same results in "unjust enrichment" which cannot be permitted. The point in dispute being squarely covered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Sahakari Khand Udyog's case (1999 (3) TMI 197 - CEGAT, MUMBAI), the order under appeal is set aside. The assessee would not be entitled to the refund of the excess amount of duty paid by it, in terms of the decisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ational Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Madurai [1999 (33) RLT 978]. While in the former decision, the Bench took the view that rebate allowable to manufacturers of sugar as per Notification No. 108/78 comes under the provisions contained in Section 11B of the Act and is hit by the principle of "unjust enrichment", in the latter decision, another Bench of the Tribunal has taken the view t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stoms, [2005 (3) SCC 738] whereby this Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee would not be entitled to the refund of the excess duty paid as the assessee had passed on the burden of the duty charged to the consumers; that the assessee would not be entitled to claim any amount by way of refund as the same results in "unjust enrichment" which cannot be permitte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X