2005 (10) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....od 1-5-1982 to 31-3-1984 deposited an amount of Rs. 1,13,014/- as establishment charges to the Central Excise Department. These establishment charges have been recovered from the appellants for the purposes of deputing the Central Excise Officers for overseeing the export of the goods. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, they paid these establishment charges under three different TR-6 challans. The details are as follows :- Sl. No. No. & date of TR-6 Challan Amount deposited Period for which deposited 1. 5, dated 15-9-84 12,821.40 1-5-82 to 31-3-84 2. 81, dated 4-9-84 22,770.00 1-4-84 to 31-3-85 3. 13, dated 10-10-85 77,422.80 1-4-85 to 31-3-86 He submits that the amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the appellants. 4. The learned SDR, on the other hand, submits that the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has been very precise in its direction to the appellants, that proof of there is no unjust enrichment and that they have not passed on the incident of duty to the customers has to be furnished, and also relies upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan stating that the adjudicating authority should have also looked into the amount whether the amount has been claimed as a benefit in the income-tax. She submits that it was the duty of the appellants to produce documentary evidence to show that the amount which has been claimed as refund has not been passed on to the customers in any way. She relies upon the decision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Thus in all the eventuality that burden possibly would have been passed over to the consumers and refund thereof may amount to unjust enrichment of the petitioner, which cannot be permitted." From the above direction of the Hon'ble High Court, it is very clear that the appellants had to satisfy the adjudicating authority on two counts; one that there is no unjust enrichment i.e., they have not claimed this amount from their customers and; second, that they have not charged this amount in their Profit & Loss Account as an expense. The appellants in the hearing before me were asked specifically as to whether this amount was charged as expenses in their Profit & Loss account. But the appellants were unable to answer the query raised by th....