2014 (12) TMI 1083

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....c duty. During investigation, it was found that the respondent has not paid additional duty (TTA). Therefore, a show cause notice was issued for the demand of duty after clearance of the goods. Adjudication took place. Thereafter, on various appellate stages, the respondents paid duty as confirmed by the adjudication order. The issue was settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. v. UOI - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 9 (Guj.) in favour of the respondent that they are not required to pay the additional duty (TTA). Therefore, the amount paid by the respondent was to be refunded to the respondent. The adjudicating authority rejected their refund claim on account of bar of unjust enrichment. On appeal, the Commis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of additional duty paid as contingent liability. To support his contention that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable, the respondeents have also produced a Cost Accountant certificate to ascertain the fact that they have not received on account of differential amount from the buyers. In these circumstances, he placed reliance on the decision of his Tribunal in the case of CCE, Pune v. Poona Rolling Mills Ltd. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 907 (Tri. Mum.) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 643 (T) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay vide Order dated 17th June, 2009 in Central Excise Appeal No. 33/2009. He also relies on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna SSK Ltd. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 192 (T) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble ....