2003 (1) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The appellants manufactured and supplied "earth pipe and cross arm" to Kerala State Electricity Board on payment of central excise duty. Subsequently, they claimed refund of the duty paid on the ground that items in question were not excisable. While the appellants succeeded on the merits of the case, the original authority held that the refund amount is required to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re Industries v. CCE., Cochin - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 53. Therefore, there is no merit in the Revenue's appeal Accordingly, their Appeal No. E/1314/2000 fails and is rejected. 4. Contention taken by the assessee against the finding of unjust enrichment is that the assessee had actually not passed on the duty liability to their buyers. It is pointed out that the assessees was one of the many supplie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the appellants claim for excise duty was not accepted at all and that the price approved did not include any provision for excise duty. The appellants, therefore, contend that the ground of unjust enrichment is not attracted in the present case. They have also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cimmco Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 246 in support of their contention.....