2008 (4) TMI 630

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....low :- "We have heard both the sides. While agreeing that the appellants would be entitled to take the amount in PLA as a consequence of their appeal being allowed by the Tribunal, since the Modvat Scheme is not available on hot re-rollable products and therefore, payment in RG 23A Part II would not amount to any benefit or relief to the appellants, we hold that the appellants will have to satisfy the Assistant Commissioner regarding non-passing of duty burden during the period covered by the appeal namely 1994-95. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to satisfy himself with the evidence that may be adduced before him as to whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment would be applicable i.e. whether the appellants have passed on the duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submits that the Adjudicating Authority relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides [1992 (57) E.L.T. 201 (Bom.)] which was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.). He further submits that the Appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof of unjust enrichment. 7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, I find that the Adjudicating Authority in compliance of the Tribunal's order held that the duty was not passed on to any other person. It is seen that the Adjudicating Authority examined the various evidences and reports. The relevant portion of the finding of the Adjudicating Authority is reproduced below- "I have carefully gone through....