TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctory and used for packing of refined edible oil. However, the appellants paid Central Excise duty on the said jars captively consumed. The said jars are exempt from payment of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 10/1996-C.E. dated 23-7-19996. 3. Accordingly, they filed refund claim and the same was rejected on the ground that the claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the order was confirmed the appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal relying upon the decision of Beekay Hoisery Industries - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 301 held that once the amount of refund has been shown as receivable, it means it has not been charged to the profit and loss account and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals). Aggrieved from the same the appellants are before me. 4. Shri Bharat Raichandani, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. He submits that the appellant has produced the audited books of account including profit and loss account and balance sheet showing the said amount of refund as excise refund claim they also produced the ledger account showing the excise refund claim receivable. They also submitted a certificate from the Chartered Accountant stating that the said amount has been shown as excise refund claim receivable and has not expensed in the course of final product. He also stated that an affidavit has also filed to this effect by the authorized signatory of the company. He further submitted that the lower ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shiqui Exports (P) Ltd. v. CC - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 67 e. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. v. CC - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 505 f. CC v. Empee Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 293 g. Corning S.A. v. CCE - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 355 h. Pinkcity Gem Technologies v. CC - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 40 i. Mohan Sales (India) v. CC - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 667 j. Picasso Exports v. CC - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 214 k. Birla Corporation v. CCE - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 482 (Tribunal) - Order No. A/500/8SM/C II, dated 6-6-2008. l.  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there was an auditor's certificate certifying that assessee had not passed on the customs duty to the customers. Came to the conclusion that the assessee had not passed on the burden of the customs duty to its customers. This fining is a finding of fact based on evidence which does not call for any interference. Further he relied on CCE v. Flow Tech Power - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 399, on the similar facts this Tribunal held as under :- "...We have gone through the relevant records carefully. On the question of time bar we are also satisfied that the duty has been paid under protest and the question of time bar would not arise. As regards unjust enrichment, the facts reveal that the price was a composite one fixed by the Ministry of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bout unjust enrichment as framed in show cause notice. 6. On the other hand the learned SDR submitted that the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has rightly rejected the refund claim of the appellants and to support his contention. He also placed reliance on the following case laws. 1. 2006 (200) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.) 2. 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) 3. Not. No. 10/96 4. 2009 (233) E.L.T. 110 (T) 5. 2009(235) E.L.T. 710 (T) 6. 2009 (239) E.L.T. 439 (T) 7. 2009 (238) E.L.T. 680 (T) 8. 2004 (166) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) 9.&nb....