2017 (8) TMI 1111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Central Excise Act, 1944 ("the Act") challenges the order dt.13.7.2006 passed by the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (the Tribunal). 3. This appeal was admitted on 23.10.2007 on the following substantial questions of law : 1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is right in holding that the refund claim of Respondent No.1 is not hit by the principle of unjust enrichment, as no incidence of duty has been passed on to third party, especially when it was conclusively proved that the Respondent No.1 while calculating the total job-work charges, had included the element of excise duty paid on raw material used for the said job-work ? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue contended that the incidence of excess duty paid by Unit I of welding electrodes had been passed on by its Unit II to its customers for whom it did job work. The impugned order rejected the contention of the appellant/Revenue by placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal .vs. PCC Pole Factory, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 649 and holding that the Revenue is not entitled to presumption u/s.12B of the Act. This presumption can only apply if there is a buyer of duty paid goods. In this case, there is no buyer. Thus, the impugned order holds that the presumption u/s.12B of the Act is not applicable....