TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - The present appeal is regarding denial of refund claimed by the appellants amounting to Rs. 20,78,502.03 on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The matter has a chequerd history and has earlier undergone several rounds of proceedings before adjudicating authority and writ petitions in the Bombay High Court. Briefly sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim of Rs. 11,61,263.18 with the prothonotary and senior master of Bombay High Court and the appellants withdrew the said amounts. The matter was thereafter readjudicated wherein the appellants produced evidence in the form of invoices in respect of the period prior to and subsequent to imposition of excise duty in support of their submission that the price during the two periods remaind same an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same price both before the imposition of duty and subsequent to the imposition of duty, as was evidenced from the invoices submitted by them and, therefore, the question of passing of incidence of duty does not arise. He, however, admitted that though earlier such evidence was sufficient to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on but as per recent judgments cannot be a suff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... creditors. The same was the situation in the balance sheets for March, 1997, etc. However, the appellants were unable to show the treatment of the amount of Rs.11,61,263.18 recovered as Central Excise duty in their balanee sheet for the relevant years as to whether these duties were shown as receivable or as expenses. 4. Heard both sides. 5. We have considered the submissions. We find....