2005 (11) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation in the succeeding years. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents for denying exemption during the period from 5-10-2001 to 31-3-2002 on the ground that their factory was not located in the rural area and the SSI exemption in respect of branded goods of others would not be available to them. Hence they stated paying duty under protest. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise Mangalore dropped the proceedings. Based on the decision of the Addl. Commissioner, the respondents filed two refund claims for Rs. 4,75,750/- and Rs. 4,30,965/-. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim of the respondents. The respondents approached the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order in favour of the respondents. 3. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peared for the respondents. 5. The learned SDR submitted that the respondents have passed on the duty incidents to the buyers and are not entitled for the refund in view of the unjust enrichment. 6. The learned advocates adduced the following arguments (1) M/s Crystal Marketing for whom the respondents had manufactured and cleared the goods had stated in their letter dated 30-3- 2002 that they cannot absorb any additional duties and levies etc., on the agreed prices and that the respondents have to bill at the same prices which were charged earlier. The buyer had thus accepted to pay only the agreed price for the goods and not any amount of duty. (2) The respondents informed the department through letter dated 3-4-2002 that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L.T. 246 (Tri.)] (b) CCE, Calcutta v. Panihati Rubber Ltd. [2004(172) E.L.T. 310 (Cal.)] (c) Himatsingka Seide Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore [2005(191) E.L.T. 885 (Tribunal) = 2005 (128) ECR 105 (T.-Bang.) (d) CCE, Nasik v. N.G. Thakkar & Sons [2004(166) E.L.T. 115 (Tri. Mum.) (e) CCE, Bhubaneshwar v. Chariot Cement Co. [2003(158) E.L.T. 521 (T.-Kol.)] (f) Panihati Rubber Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta [2001(127) E.L.T. 742] (g) Infar (India) Ltd., v. CC, New Delhi [2002(150) E.L.T. 411 (T. Del.) 7. We have gone through the records of the case very carefully. The re fund arises on account of the fact that the respondents were entitled for the benefit of exemption notification and on the insistence of the department they paid duty under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....@Rs. 43.00/case of 12 Bottles 1Ltr (Regular) @Rs. 65.00/case of 12 Bottles 1Ltr (Railway) @Rs. 63.00/case of 12 Bottles 1.2 Ltr             @Rs. 69.00/case of 12 Bottles 2 Ltr                @Rs. 78.00/case.of 12 Bottles 5 Ltr                @Rs. 10.00/Can of 5 Ltr (Bisleri Cans) 5 Ltr                @Rs. 8.00/Can of 5 Ltr (Distributor's Cans) 20 Ltr              @Rs. 19.00/Jars of Bisleri 20 Ltr&n....