1985 (12) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om the buyer or given proof of such payment. An appeal was filed by the appellants against this order before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, and that authority rejected the appeal on two grounds: (a) The provisions of a notification cannot be forced upon a manufacturer if he does not avail of such provision of his own choice. In the present case, the appellants had paid duty on their own volition; and (b)  It is a well settled principle that where duties have been collected and paid to the Exchequer properly, the same cannot be refunded if the benefit does not pass on to the consumer. 2.  Before us, the learned representative for the appellants points out that on 30-11-83, the appellants filed a declara....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,000/-. The appellants made a claim for refund on 31-8-84 well within the period laid down in Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the first clearance having taken place on 13-3-84. The learned representative for the appellants drew our attention to a decision of this Bench in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. M/s. Andhra Asphalt (P) Ltd. [Appeal No. E-152/83 (MAS) dated 9.7.85] 1985 (22) E.L.T. 539 (Tribunal), wherein it has been held that the theory of unjust enrichment finds no place in dealing with a claim for refund of duty under Sec. 11B of the Act. He also referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. v. M.K. Chipker and others - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 334 (Bom.). 3.&emsp....