2018 (1) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the refund claim has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts of the case are the appellant is manufacturer of bulk drugs and paying duty thereon under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After availing abatement prescribed as Vide Notification No.2/2007-CE (NT) dated 01.02.2007, the payme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce of their goods has been fixed by the drugs authority and they are selling goods on MRP basis. In this case, it is a fact on record that price is fixed, therefore, whatever duty is payable by the appellant, the same is borne by the appellant only and no part of duty recoverable from the buyers. He also relied on the decision in the case of M/s Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vide Final Order No.70931/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts is based upon the MRP of the said products less abatement, as per the Notification. It is also seen undisputed that the appellant had not charged anything extra over and above MRP printed on the Medicaments cleared by them. in respect of which they have claimed refund of interest of duty. 9. Looking from another angle, issue is regarding for unjust enrichment will apply when products are so....