TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund of excise duty deposited during pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court was barred by unjust enrichment.
Analysis: The amount was deposited under protest while the classification dispute was sub judice and the assessee had not raised any supplementary invoice or collected the disputed duty from the buyer for the relevant clearances. The Court held that duty paid for an earlier clearance of one product could not be presumed to have been passed on merely because later payments were made from receipts of other products. On the admitted facts, the entries in the balance-sheet and the mode of deposit through TR-6 challans and PLA debit did not establish passing on of the incidence of duty to the buyer.
Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was not attracted and the refund claim was maintainable in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The refund rejection was set aside and the assessee was held entitled to refund with interest and consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where excise duty is paid under protest during pendency of a classification dispute and the assessee has not recovered the disputed duty from the buyer for the relevant clearance, refund cannot be denied on unjust enrichment merely on a presumption that later receipts from other sales funded the payment.
TaxTMI 
