2014 (6) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eased from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 10/- per thousand Biris vide Notification No. 3/2007, dated 1-3-2007. But the rate of duty was once again reduced to Rs. 8/- vide Notification No. 22/2007, dated 3-5-2007. But the primary society continued to pay at the rate of Rs. 10/- from 3-5-2007 to 31-7-2007. Thus the primary society had paid excess amount of Rs. 92,545/- towards duty. 1.3 However the duty amount was recovered by primary society from Central Society. The primary society filed refund claim which was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The claim was rejected on the ground that the excess duty paid by them has been collected from the buyer i.e. from the appellant (the Central Society). The Central Society also filed refund claim ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... their claim that prior to 1-3-2007 and after 31-7-2007 and also in between the price of biris remained same irrespective of the amount of duty paid mainly whether it is Rs. 8/- or Rs. 10/-. 2.3 I find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 3.1 Learned AR on the other hand submits that in the case of Interach Building Products (P) Ltd. [2005 (184) E.L.T. 154 (Tri.-Del.)] the Tribunal had taken the view that mere stability in price does not lead to an irresistible conclusion that burden of duty has not been passed on to the customers. He submits that this decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore the appellants have no case. Ongoing through the decision ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in several cases. In our opinion, therefore, irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of the Act, the doctrine can be invoked to deny the benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Section 11B of the Act or similar provision merely gives legislative recognition to this doctrine. That, however, does not mean that in absence of statutory provision, a person can claim or retain undue benefit. Before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss." 4. As can be seen the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Ma....