TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant. Shri M.M. Matkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. Commr.(A)/082/VDR/2003, date 3-3-03, by which the Commissioner upheld the order of original authority rejecting five refund claims. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : (a)&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of the original authority. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. The scope of unjust enrichment clause in Section 11B has been deliberated by Hon'ble High Court Madras in the case of Addison & Co. v. CCE, Madras reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 44 (Mad.). The relevant portions are reproduced below : "8. It is significant that neither Section 11B o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illed the condition set out in clause (b) of proviso to Section 11B(2) manufacturer would be entitled to refund. Such refund cannot be denied on the ground that there was no evidence to show as to who the ultimate consumer of the product was and as to whether the ultimate consumer had been asked to bear the burden of the duty which had been initially paid by the manufacturer. 15. The langu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the ultimate consumer. The buyer referred to therein in the normal circumstances is the buyer who buys the goods from the person who has paid duty." 5. In the light of above, the view taken by the original authority as upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) that the duty benefit claimed should have been passed to the ultimate customer is not envisaged. 6. It is, however, noticed that t....