2008 (8) TMI 324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs.11,52,125/- before the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the issue of classification of 'Dant Manjan Lal' was decided in their favour by the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai dismissed the appeals filed by the Department against the Order-in-Original No. 83/97/NGP-1/DEM, dated 25-6-1997 of the Assistant Commissioner dropping the demands raised for the subsequent periods. The appellants sought refund of the amount of the duty paid on the Dant Manjan Lal during the period from August, 1999 to February, 2000. 2. The Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the appellants seeking to credit the amount of refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. After hearing the appellants, he sanctioned the refund and credited ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tals & Ferro Alloys v. CCE, Bhubaneshwar reported in 2000 (125) E.L.T. 943 (Tri). They stated that the lower authorities distinguished the above decisions only on the ground that these pertained to the payment of duty under Section 4 of the Act, whereas their case is covered by Section 4A thereof. The lower authorities committed a serious error in distinguishing the cited decisions. The ratio of these decisions is applicable to their case irrespective of the difference in the assessment of the goods because what was relevant was the selling price and not the mode and manner of assessment of excise duty. 5.2 The appellants maintained that a person claiming refund of excise duty has to only establish that he has not passed on the incidence ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Excise invoice bears the remark as under: "MRP shown in this bill does not include central excise duty. The central excise duty paid on this bill is not recovered from the customer." In addition, the invoice is stamped by "Duty Paid Under Protest". Similarly, the illustrative commercial invoice contains a remark as aforesaid regarding non-recovery of excise duty. Further, the price circular effective from 15-11-99 carries a remark as under: (A) The above prices are inclusive of all taxes, but does not include Central Excise Duty." The above facts are not disputed. But the crux of the matter is that the appellants have failed to prove that the incidence of duty is not included in the MRP. The appellants did not produce, either before us o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not the situation in the present case. Hence, the ratio of the Addison and Co. case law is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 (S.C.) has held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is that no person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another. A right of recovery under the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' arises where retention of a benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount ....