2005 (1) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollected by the appellants and invoices were issued at the instance of the department till the disposal of the finalisation of their classification list and as such, the principle of unjust enrichment has no application to the case of the appellants. The learned counsel has relied the following cases in order to support of his contention :- 1.         Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 989 (T). 2.         S. Kumar's Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 217 (Tri. - LB) = 2003 (55) RLT 399 (Tri.-LB). 3.         Grasim Cement v. CCE - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 694 (Tri.-LB). 4.    &....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... record. 5.The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paperboard falling under Chapter 48 of CETA, 1985. They in terms of Rule 173B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, filed classification lists, claiming the benefit of exemption Notification No. 84/94-C.E., dated 25-4-1994 which envisage payment of duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem. But pending approval of the classification list, the appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem for the period March, 94 to June, 94. However, later on their classification list was approved and duty became payable at the rate of 10%. Under these circumstances, they have filed refund claim. 6.The contention of the le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns. The words 'duty has not been passed on to the buyers' have been purposely used by the Legislature in order to meet the situation like the present one which we have in hand. A manufacturer after issuing invoices changing particular rate of duty, to the customers, and later on availing benefit of duty exemption notification, cannot claim refund of duty from the department on the ground of having not actually collected it. The appellant's after having issued invoices at the time of clearance of the goods, showing duty @ 20% ad valorem, cannot be heard contending that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the buyers, as the buyers had not actually made payment of price of the goods to them. The subsequent issuance of the credit no....