2017 (9) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spute is April 2009 to June 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the assessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel products which attracts excise duty. The assessee-Appellants had paid the duty on the said items, but later gave discount to the customers. So, claim of the refund has been filed which was denied by the Department. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri T.R. Rustogi, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants and Shri K. Chaudhari, learned DR for the Revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants submits that credit notes were issued subsequently and the same were n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... will be useful to refer to the relevant para of Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India (supra) in this connection. "108. (iii) A claim for refund, whether made under the provisions of the Act as contemplated in Proposition (i) above or in a suit or writ petition in the situations contemplated by Proposition (ii) above, can succeed only if the petitioner/plaintiff alleges and establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to another person/other persons. His refund claim shall be allowed/decreed only when he establishes that he has not passed on the burden of the duty or to the extent he has not so passed on, as the case may be. Whether the claim for restitution is treated as a constitutional imperative or as a statutory require....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee-Appellants had failed to establish and prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyers; hence, the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable in the refund claims. 7. From the record, it appears that the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable in the instant case under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is evident from the record that the assessee-Appellants had failed to submit such documentary evidence on record with the refund claims to establish that the duty incidence claims for refund has not been passed on to the buyers. Record produced by the assessee-Appellants are the credit notes, customers ledger etc., but no documentary evidence to establish that duty incidence claims for refund ....