2022 (11) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of suture needles and micro surgical blades. They are registered with the Central Excise Department. The classification of suture needles was under dispute and finally settled to be under Chapter Heading 90 of CETA, 1985. The suture needles falling under Chapter 90 attracts nil rate of duty un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter reached the Tribunal and vide Final Order No. 41032/2015 dated 12.8.2015, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matter was taken up for rehearing by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the directions of this Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the order impug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore unjust enrichment will not arise. The appellants have not passed on the burden of duty to the buyers. This duty element is included in the cost structure with the result that their profit margin is reduced. This would show that the excise duty is borne by them. He prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3. The learned AR Shri R. Rajaraman supported the findings in the impugned order. He ad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntends that they have absorbed the duty element to their cost structure, there is no evidence produced by them to prove the same. He submitted that the discussions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) would prove that the refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment. He prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue is whether the refund claim is hit by the bar of unjus....