2015 (6) TMI 1062

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd., by which goods manufactured by the appellant were to be sent directly to the distribution centers of the principal manufacturer. During the disputed period, the appellant inadvertently calculated excise duty on an incorrect MRP. The duty required to be paid on the price of Rs. 65 per sachet, less abatement of 35%. Whereas, appellant paid duty by considering MRP as Rs. 310 per sachet less abatement. The mistake in wrong invoicing was noticed by the manufacturer, who raised a debit note and debited the appellants account to rectify such error. Upon issuances of the debit note, the appellant had filed the refund application before the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, claiming refund of excess excise duty paid. The refund appl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the fact of the present case, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the following decisions rendered by the Judicial forums:- (a) CCE, Bangalore-II vs. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd., 2011 (267) ELT 607 (Kar.); (b) CCE, Mangalore-III vs Solaris Chemtech Ltd., 2011 (273)  ELT 191 (Kar.); (c) Union of India vs A.K. Spintex Ltd., 2009 (234) ELT 41 (Raj.); and (d) Sudhir Papers Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore, 2012 (276) ELT 304. 4. On the other hand, Sh. Pramod Kumar, the Ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that non-passing of the duty incidence has not been satisfactorily ....