9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ 2005 (3) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT] held that doctrine of unjust enrichment based on equity, has been accepted and applied in several cases. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act was similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine. That, however, does not mean that in absence of statutory provision, a person can claim or retain undue benefit. Before claiming a relief of refund it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in spite of notice. Heard ld. SDR. 3. In this case, the appellant filed a refund claim in pursuance to the Final Order No. C/403/93-D, dated 18-11-1993 passed by the Tribunal. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the appellant failed to show that burden of the duty has not been passed on to the customers. The appeal filed by the appellant was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the same reasons. During arguments the issue, under consideration was raised by appellant before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal taking only one ground i.e. they had proved the fact that burden of duty has not been passed on to their customers as the price of the final product re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 401. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the decision of Constitutional Bench in the case of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 held that Section 27 of the Act is, in a sense, complete code by itself, dealing with the claim for refund of duty. The procedure provided by Section 27(1) is applicable in case of application for refund being filed after the said section was amended. Sub-section (1) itself requires a person making an application for refund to furnish documents and evidence (including the documents referred to in Section 28C) to establish that the amount of duty, in respect of which refund is claimed was collected or paid by him and incidence of such duty has not been passed on by hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no other issue is involved in this appeal. 8. The contention of the appellant in the appeal memo is only that the burden of duty has not been passed on to their customers as the price of the excisable goods remains same after payment of duty and thereafter. 9. The contention of the Revenue is that as per Council of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants guidelines the cost of production includes all direct costs and all indirect costs related to the production and the duty paid on plant and machinery is a part of the cost of plant which also relates for cost and production of goods. 10. The revenue also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. reported in 2004 (16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
