2004 (7) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts for refund of customs duty but credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund after holding that the claim was hit by unjust enrichment. The decision of the original authority was upheld by the first appellate authority in an appeal preferred by the party. Hence this appeal. 2. The refund claimed was of customs duty paid on capital goods imported by the appellants under EPCG Scheme. The sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; Pearl Beverages Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 92 (Tri. - Del.) 3. On the other hand, ld. DR relies on the Tribunal's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 878 (Tri. - Mumbai) and submits that the Apex Court's ruling in Solar Pesticides (supra) is applicable to the instant case. 4. The question now is w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orresponding Section 11B of the C.E. Act) would be applicable in respect of imported raw material and captively consumed in the manufacture of a final product and duty is considered to have been passed on when the duty paid on raw material has been added to the price of the finished goods and the Hon'ble Apex Court has not said anything about captive consumption of capital goods. We also note that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a) also, it was held that the ratio of the decision in Solar Pesticides (supra) was not applicable to a claim of refund of customs duty paid on imported capital goods. The observation made by the West Zonal Bench, in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. (supra), that "the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) makes it clear that....