TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and as a result, the appellant paid Rs. 6,02,400/- for the period February 2000 to December 2001 for the past clearances under protest. Thereafter, the appellant started paying the duty on their clearances under protest regularly. The issue was decided on merits by CESTAT in the appellants favour and the appellant filed refund claim of the duty they paid. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund claim. However, he credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund account of unjust enrichment. The appellant agitated the matter before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the original adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y gate and the said amount was debited as a result of demand made by their jurisdictional central excise authorities. As such, it can be safely concluded that such deposit of amount was in the nature of deposit made after clearances and at the instructions of the Revenue, which has been held to be as not payable by the Tribunal. Inasmuch as, clearances had also been effected, there is no evidence on record that the appellant subsequently recovered the said amount from their customers. As such, we are of the view that refund of Rs. 37,532/- is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. He also argued that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and had worked out the taxable value of Rs. 1.56 per kg in the excise invoice based on the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Central Excise Vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (reported in 2002 (141) ELT 3). It is therefore been argued by the original adjudicating authority that incidence of duty was passed on to the customer by the appellants vide through their Commercial invoices and not through the medium of the excise invoice. I find merit in the findings of the original adjudicating authority. The appellants has failed to explain why the price should be different in the Commercial and Excise Invoices. If the price in the Commercial invoices did not include the duty element as contended by the appellant then the price in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer as such uniformity may be due to various factors. Hence, even on merits, the respondent has failed to make out a case for refund. Since relevant factors stated above have not been examined by the authorities below, we do not find merit in the contention of the respondent that this Court should not interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution in view of the concurrent finding of fact. 5. In some cases, the customers may be entitled to avail Cenvat Credit and would have done so if possible. Thus, in respect of all the invoices in which at the time of clearance the duty payment has been shown in the invoice, there is no doubt that the....