2004 (1) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iled this appeal against the order-in-appeal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) held that principle of unjust enrichment is not applicable in respect of the refund claim of the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the processing of M.M. Fabric with the aid of hot air stenter. The annual capacity of production of hot air stenter was determined by the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Adjudicating Authority allowed the refund but directed the amount to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the respondents have not produced the proof that the burden of duty has been borne by them. On appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order and allowed the refund. 5. The contention of the Revenue is that every refund .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... capacity of the stenter and there is no evidence on record that this duty paid by the respondents was ever recovered by them from their customers. As the differential duty was paid by the respondents on re-determination of the capacity of the stenter and the same was not recovered from their customers, in these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. & .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X