2018 (12) TMI 242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al assessments during the period October, 2012 to September, 2013. Subsequently, on finalisation of the said provisional assessments it was noticed that respondents had paid excess duty and they filed refund claim for the said amount which was rejected by the lower authorities. The matter reached the Tribunal and by final order No.A/30435- 30438/2016 dated 04.05.2016, the Bench held that the appellant is eligible for the refund of the amounts which they have paid in excess (arrived at after finalisation of assessments) and accordingly allowed the appeal, with consequential relief. On obtaining such order, the respondent filed an application for the refund of the amounts involved on 14.07.2016. The adjudicating authority in the case in hand,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t clears the goods to their dealers and the dealers subsequently clear the goods to the ultimate consumers. He would submit that Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CCE, Visakhapatnam-II Vs Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills [2018 (361) ELT 409] has held that Apex Court's judgment in the case of Adison & Co. Ltd (supra) is applicable and the burden of the duty if passed on to the final consumer, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies, he also brings to my knowledge the judgment of this Bench in the case of CCE & ST, Hyderabad-II Vs Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd [2018 (360) ELT 544] and submits that Bench has taken the same view. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tegorically recorded that the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. In pursuance of such an order, respondent herein filed a refund claim for the amount. The adjudicating authority, in my view, has ventured into the merits of the matter, to hold that the refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment, without considering the fact that the Tribunal's order is binding on him unless set aside by higher judicial forum. In my view, the first appellate authority in Para 7 has correctly held so, which requires reproduction. "7. It is clear from Para 3 of the impugned order that the refund arises from a favourable order passed by the Tribunal, which has been challenged by the department before the High Court, who admittedly did not stay the ope....