Manufacturers win duty refund dispute over hose pipes classification, citing unjust enrichment concerns.

PANIHATI RUBBER LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-II

PANIHATI RUBBER LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-II - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 742 (Tri. - Cal.) Issues involved: Classification of goods for duty rate determination, unjust enrichment in refund claims.

Classification of Goods: The appellants, manufacturers of hose pipes for Indian Railways, claimed classification under Heading 4009.99 at nil rate, but authorities classified them under Heading 4009.92 at 30% duty. Appellants cleared goods under protest and sought refund, which was denied due to unjust enrichment concerns.

Unjust Enrichment: Appellants argued that the price fixed by railways included duties, as confirmed in various letters. They cited a Tribunal decision in CIMMCO Ltd. case supporting their stance that duty liability was not passed on to buyers. The Department contended that inclusive pricing implies duty passed on, but the Tribunal found that if the price includes duties and taxes, unjust enrichment does not apply. Refund granted to appellants based on CIMMCO Ltd. precedent, setting aside contrary orders.