2007 (4) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent. [Order]. -  This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal dt. 20-3-2003 which set aside the order-in-original. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice but filed a cross objection to the Revenue's appeal. Since the matter is of 2003 I take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of the respondent. 3. Heard the ld. JDR. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for considering the issue afresh. 5. On perusal of the records produced before me I find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the refund claim, which has been filed by the respondent in respect of the amount of duty, which was paid by them due to wrong calculation and not considering the price as 'cum duty prices'. It is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity of the unjust enrichment clause in the present case. The copies of the Central Excise invoices issued by the manufacturer show that duty had been paid on the goods at Stockists price, which were cum duty price. The burden of the excess duty paid by the manufacturer was borne by the Appellants in terms of the agreement entered between the two. While selling out these duty paid goods to the Stoc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rise at all. The refund claim, in question, has not been preferred by the manufacturer who had paid the excess duty. Instead, it has been preferred by the Appellants who have borne the incidence of excess duty paid on the excisable goods in question. The Appellants have produced a disclaimer certificate from the manufacturer stating therein that they had no objection on the Appellants claiming ....