2018 (2) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per: Ashok Jindal Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein refund claim of the excess duty paid by them has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground that they have passed the said duty incidence to the ultimate customers hence the refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment.  2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of specialized mot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant is manufacturing motor vehicle which is to be used by the consumers and dealers have not paid duty component. In the circumstances in the light of the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Addison & Co Ltd. - 2016 (339) ELT 177 (S.C.) the demand is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. 4. On the other hand, learned A.R. opposed the contention of the learned Advoca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not agree to pay the differential amount of value and excise duty thereon to VIPL. Since we had not paid the differential value and excise duty thereon to VIPL, we did not charge the said differential value and excise duty thereon, from our customers i.e., the dealers in the sale price of the vehicles. In view of the above, the excess excise duty charged by VIPL has been borne by VIPL and the s....