TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in deductions claimed in the 'price lists' in 1991 and, consequent upon appeal before the first appellate authority, the declaration in the pricelist was approved leading to claim for refund of the differential duty that had been paid. 2, The claim was rejected initially on the ground of limitation which was overruled by the first appellate authority and, thereafter, the refund was sanctioned but, on appeal by Revenue, the first appellate authority set aside the order favoring the appellant. In appeal before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority for ascertainment of the applicability of unjust enrichment on the basis of evidence placed before the Tribunal. In the impugned order, it was that rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al consequence of withholding the release by invoking the principle of unjust enrichment. From the records, it is seen that the differential duty has been collected by adding supervision charges, cost of 'bought out' items and sales-tax. 6. The dispute on the differential duty arose from the additions to the assessable value of heads of expenditure that were claimed to be eligible for deductions in computation of duties of central excise. It also harks back to a time when invoice-based assessment was not in vogue and duties reflecting the tax liability as declared/approved were incorporated in the pre-authenticated challans covering clearance. The differential duty was collected on goods that were cleared after declaration and in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lished that the amount of duty had passed on to the buyer. According to the Commissioner (Appeals) the duty liability amounting to Rs. 10,87,824/- determined by the Commissioner deposited by the assessee on 25-3-1998 was paid by the assessee from its own pocket. Therefore, the refund was held admissible. It was also found that in cases where duty is paid subsequent to the date of clearance, the presumption under Section 12B of the Act stood rebutted. However, in respect of the month of March, 1998 the deposit of Rs. 1,36,870/- was not refundable as it had been passed on to the buyer. The Revenue approached the CEGAT against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-7-2001. The CEGAT vide its final order dated 16-4-2002 dismissed the appeal of the Revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... denial of refund to the respondents herein is not challenged as the goods were cleared during the month of deposit. In this view of the matter we do not see any reason 10 disagree with the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)..." making it clear that duty collected after clearance of goods would, logically, have been borne by the assessee and, therefore, not liable to be transferred to the Fund. 9. In re Sun-N-Step Club Ltd, the Tribunal applied its earlier decision in Commissioner v. VS Infrastructure Capital Ltd [2012 (25) STR 170 (Tribunal)] which held : '3. The Id. Advocate on behalf of the Respondent submits [hat similar issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Panihati Rubber Limited v. Commissioner of Cen....