2009 (4) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... being consumed captively by them in the manufacture of HDPE tapes. A dispute about classification of HDPE tape arose between the appellant and Revenue in or around in the year 1986 onwards till March 1992. The said dispute was settled in favour of the assessee, thus resulting in their claim of refund of duty paid during the relevant period. Such refund was sanctioned by the original adjudicating authority but transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund. However, on an appeal against the above order, Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee. The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) was appealed against by Revenue before Tribunal, who remanded the matter for re-consideration in the light of the Supreme Court decision in case of M/s. So....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. reported vide 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.), clearly gave the verdict that unjust enrichment means passing not only of duty directly to another person but also when passed indirectly, duty paid on raw material when added, to price of finished goods, incidence of duty considered to have been passed. It was clearly held in this landmark judgment that the principle of unjust enrichment applies to captive consumption also. I am surprised how the guide-lines set by the Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned case was not taken into account. I also find that the Assistant Commissioner, vide Order-in-original No. 05/AC/REF/2008, dt. 30-4-08 has sanctioned an interest amounting to Rs. 44,28,444/- to the Respondent, quoting the case-laws, on....