TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (10) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Delton Cables Ltd. is whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the refund of Central Excise duty claimed by them. 2. Shri S.C. Kamra, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants manufacture wires and cables for the Department of Telecommunication; that the price for sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey had not shown the cost of transportation separately in the invoice and thus have not fulfilled the condition of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present matter; that since the rate awarded by the Department of Telecommunication was composite inclusive of duties, freight, etc.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d freight and the cost of transportation has not been shown separately in the invoice. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, [2004 (172) E.L.T. 493 (T) = 2004 (64) RLT 482 (CESTAT)] and Kisan Mouldings Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-IV [2004 (62) RLT 712 (CESTAT, Delhi)]. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri S.M. Tata, learned Senior De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to their customers. As per the provisions of Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, the burden has been cast upon the person who claims the refund of duty to prove that the amount of duty of incidence in relation to which refund is claimed was paid by him and the incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person. No material has been brought on record by the Appellants to....