2004 (2) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... awn by Notification No. 181/88, dated 13-5-1988. However, the said exemption from duty was restored by another Notification No. 250/88, dated 1-9-88. The appellants paid duty on the parts of Pressure Cookers, which were captively consumed in the manufacture of pressure cookers, even when such parts were exempt from payment of Central Excise duty after 1-9-1988 upto 20-9-1988. The appellants claimed refund of such duty paid on the plea that there was no increase in the price of pressure cookers when they paid duty on the parts, which established that, the appellants have not passed on the incidence of duty to their buyers. The original authority admitted that the appellants paid Central Excise duty on parts during the period 1-9-88 to 20-9-8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The parts on which duty is erroneously paid were captively consumed as therefore the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. Solar Pesticides - 1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 (Bom.) case of Bombay High Court was relied upon. (b) Parts of pressure cookers were captively consumed and therefore were not sold, no excise duty was charged in respect of these parts. Hence provisions of Section 11B do not apply. (c) Pressure cookers themselves were exempt from payment of duty. When they were sold no excise duty was paid. So provisions of Section 11B do not apply. (d) On a captive consumption situation the buyer and the seller remained the same. There is no external buyer to whom the burden of duty can be passed on. 5.The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ring the course of arguments the ld. Advocate pleaded that the single most important factor in the appellant's favour is that the price of the pressure cooker always remained same whether they paid duty on the inputs or not. The appellant, he argued, had fixed the price structure for pressure cooker 1½ years before withdrawal of exemption. The prices of pressure cookers were inclusive of all costs. The price structure remained the same even after the exemption was restored. He argued that the presumption against the appellant that he has passed on the incidence of duty has been successfully rebutted. He relied on the decision of the Majority Judgment of the Tribunal cited supra. He argued that even if the doctrine of unjust enrichment appli .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X