2018 (1) TMI 476

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for rejecting their refund claim. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is manufacturing aluminium conductors and supplying to various electricity departments. The appellant has entered in the contract having a price variation clause. As per the said clause, the price o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... amount no excess duty has been paid by the buyer. These facts has not been rebutted. The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid by them. The said refund claim was rejected on the premise that the appellant was required to pay duty at the time of clearance of goods which they had paid. Therefore, question of unjust enrichment does not arise. Aggrieved from the said order, the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- Del.). 4. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties considered the submissions. 6. I find that in this case facts are not in dispute that at the time of clearance of goods there was a price variation clause and appellant paid duty at the time of clearance of goods on the price which was higher than the actual price. It is also ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Therefore, on the principle of equity, if any excess duty has been paid by appellant, the Revenue is required to refund to the assessee the excess duty. Therefore, the reasoning given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside as it has not been disputed by the Revenue that the excess duty has not been paid by the buyer, therefore, the appellant has passed the bar of unjust enrichment. ....