2005 (4) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lies to the refund of duty sought by them. 2. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants process man-made fabrics; that they receive grey unprocessed fabric from suppliers; that in terms of Notification No. 7/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 1-3-2001 they get deemed Cenvat Credit in respect of declared inputs used in the manufacture of processed fabrics; that prior to 11-6-2001 the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 61,146/- as the said amount had not been realized from their customers; that the refund claim has been rejected on the ground that the duty liability was passed on to the customers and subsequent credit notes issued to the customers does not make the bar of unjust enrichment inapplicable. The learned Advocate further submitted that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers as t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and emphasized the fact that the Appellants have not produced any proof that their customers in turn had not passed on the incidence of duty, now sought to be claimed as refund, to their customers. 4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. There is substantial force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that the incidence of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X