9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,924 and Rs. 6705 were rejected. Both the claims were rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. It is the finding of the Commissioner that the appellant has passed on the higher duty to their buyers and subsequently returned the excess amount through credit note. Relying on the decisions of the Tribunal it has been held the bar of unjust enrichment attracted to cases where full duty amount has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice dated 9-5-2002 wherein the appellant had stated that they had billed the purchaser wrongly at a price higher than the contracted price and paid duty on the higher price. But the buyer gave them payment only on the amount calculated on contracted price and on the duty involved on contracted price. It has specifically been stated that the appellant had not paid the billed amount either by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act, the buyer found out the mistake in the price supplied and made payment only after debiting the excess amount. He has pointed out that this position remains established by Debit Note dated 12-10-2001 issued by M/s. Ankit Automobile to the appellant. 5. A perusal of the Debit Note dated 12-10-2001 makes it clear that the debit is being made towards excise duty also. The relevant para of the N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
