TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the Project Import Regulation, 1986 for setting up a Gas Power Plant. There was some dispute with regard to the entitlement of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 36/96-Cus. dated 23-7-1996. Ultimately the issue was settled by the order of CEGAT, Chennai dated 10-8-2000. Consequent to the CEGAT order, the appellant was entitled to refund of Rs. 27,96,38,449/- towards the excess duty paid. The appellants filed a refund claim. But the Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice for adjustment of Rs. 1,95,00,272/- towards the duty liability of the appellants on account of addition of supervision charges to assessable value. The balance amount was proposed to be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; U.O.I. v. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] (e) G.K.N. Invel Transmissions Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi [2001 (137) E.L.T. 527 (Tri.-Del.)] (f) Oriental Exports v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2001 (127) E.L.T. 578 (Tri.-Del.)] (g) CCE, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [2003 (156) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] (h) CCE, Mumbai v. Allied Photographics India Ltd. [2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] (i) CCE, Calicut v. Kerala State Electricity Board [2005 (191) E.L.T. 187 (Tri.-Bang.)] (j) Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE & C [2005 (181) E.L.T. 32....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alisation of provisional assessment. However the same issue was examined thoroughly in the Godvari Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. case (supra) by this Bench and it was held that at all times, ever since the introduction of the concept of unjust enrichment, all cases of refund including finalisation of provisional assessment should be scrutinized for unjust enrichment. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which has been upheld by the Apex Court. In terms of the case law relied on in the impugned order even in respect of finalisation of provisional assessment, the unjust aspect has to be examined. We would also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore, they could not have passed on the burden to the buyers. This aspect has not been properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, we have no other option but to remand the case to the original authority to examine the unjust enrichment aspect and pass an order in accordance with law. On merits, we make it abundantly clear that the respondents are entitled for the refund. The Respondents shall produce all the necessary documentary evidences within two months which are on record to satisfy the original authority regarding their claim of not passing on the burden of duty paid to others. In any case, the Adjudicating authority shall decide the case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order after....