TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial duty under protest under TR-6 challan. However, no supplementary invoice was issued in respect of payment of differential duty. The appellant subsequently filed the refund claim for refund of the differential duty of Rs. 7,40,450/- paid by them under protest, as the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was in their favour. This refund claim was rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 19.12.2005. However, on appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this decision, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-original dated 14.02.2006 set aside the Astt. Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal holding that since in this case, the differential duty had been paid subsequent to the clearance by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....situations, the fact remains that, generally speaking, every manufacturer will sell his goods at something above the cost-price plus duty. There may be a loss-making concern but the loss occurs not because of the levy of the excise duty - which is uniformly levied on all manufacturers of similar goods - but for other reasons. No manufacturer can say with any reasonableness that he cannot survive in business unless he collects the duty from both ends." He. accordingly, pleaded that merely on the basis of the production of Chartered Accountant's certificate that the differential duty paid subsequently had not been realized by the respondent from their customers it can not be inferred that the respondent have discharged the burden of proo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der protest. Subsequently when the matter was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the respondent's favour, they filed the refund claim. There is no dispute that in respect of payment of differential duty totaling Rs. 7,40,450/-, no supplementary invoice has been issued to the customers. The only point of dispute is as to whether the bar of unjust enrichment would be applicable in the present case. We find that the Tribunal in the series of judgements in the cases of Plas Pack Industries (supra), Silwester Textiles P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2003 (156) ELT 216, Industrial Cables (supra), Easter Industries Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Southern Agrifune Indus. Ltd. (supra) has held that the bar of unjust enrichment is not ....