2006 (10) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant. The learned authorised representative for the department has gone through the relevant material on record and the findings of the authorities below, and submitted that even in a case of captive consumption, the doctrine of unjust enrichment could be invoked. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) and CCE, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) in support of his contention. 3. It appears from the record that the appellant was engaged in manufacture of transmission tower parts falling under Chapter sub-heading 7308.90 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... person. In response thereto in the reply dated 23-3-99, the appellant had stated as under :- "5. That we have not included any certificate from Chartered Accountant to the effect that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person. In this connection please note that to pass the incidence of duty "original" gate pass was required before 1994. In our case all the original gate passes issued by us showing "self/SAE (India) Limited as consignee for our captive use and all the original gate passes have been submitted with our refund claim, which confirms our refund claim, as incidence of duty has not been passed to any other person. Similarly "under protest" amount was debited from PLA without issuing any gate pass hence in....