TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R Per Dr D. M. Misra This is an appeal filed against OIA-77/2008/AHD-I/CE/ID/COMMR-A dt 21.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant was issued with a show Cause Notice on 23.2.2006 for recovery/ appropriation of duty of Rs. 3,44,374/- on account of incorrect determination of assessable value. It was alleged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow Cause Notice was issued to them on 30.5.2007 proposing rejection of the same and on adjudication, the claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld Commissioner (Appeal), who in turn upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The Ld Advocate, for the appellant Shri S B Shah, has submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y argued that the only issue needs to be examined is the criteria of unjust enrichment. It is his contention that even though the invoice raised on the purchaser company i.e., M/s Patel Brothers reflected their transaction value, but accepting the stand of the Dept. duty was to be paid on the higher value i.e. the price at which M/s Patel Brothers sold the goods to their customers. The differentia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ground of principles of unjust enrichment. In other words, the refund, if any, filed would have to be subjected to the principles of unjust enrichment. I find the authorities below are confused on the eligibility of refund without verification of the fact whether the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customers or otherwise. The evidences, the appellant referred to in the Appeal paper....