2005 (8) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The contention of the assessee is that though the goods were sold initially passing the incidence of duty along with sale price, subsequently credit note of the duty has been issued to the purchaser, which alleged to be the conclusive proof of not passing the inc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. According to the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the appellants, they have sold the goods to a Society and later on issued a credit note in respect of the duty, which is sufficient proof for not passing the incidence of duty and the Society in its turn supplied the goods to the victims freely, as such there cannot be an element of passing of incidence of duty to the consumers. She ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntly covers the case of the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have taken into consideration and given due weight to the credit note produced before him. 7. I am of the considered opinion that the appellants have made out the case and there is no question of unjust enrichment and the refund claim can be sanctioned. In the result, the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court) - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X