S No
|
Citation
|
Name of the Party
|
Subject Heading
|
1
|
2012
(2) ECS (71) (Tri-Del)(154KB)
|
M/s JSB Aluminum
|
The excise duty as
well as education cess and S&H Education Cess paid
by the appellant at the time of removal of excisable goods from his unit has
been passed on the customers, therefore, any refund of the excise duty or
education cess given to the appellant would amount
to unjust enrichment, which is not permissible, in view of Section 11B of the
Central Excise Act which provides that refund in term of the provision shall
be allowed if the incidence of duty paid erroneously has not been passed on
to any other person
|
2
|
2013
(2) ECS (80) (Tri-Del)(157KB)
|
M/s Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd.]
|
In view of the
non-obstante clause of sub-section (3) of Section 11(B), all the refund
claims made during the period w.e.f 20.09.1991 would be subject to the
principle of unjust enrichment. We find that the same view has been taken by
the Apex Court in the decision of Sahkari Khand Udyog Vs. CCE reported in
2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC).
|
3
|
2013(1)
ECS (76) (Tri-Mad)(152KB)
|
M/s KONE Elevator India Pvt. Ltd
|
Uniformity of price cannot be bar
for unjust enrichment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd. Vs
CCE, reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T 3 (S.C.) held that consistency of price of
final goods of the assessee did not materially lead
to the conclusion that incidence of duty had not passed on to the customers
|
4
|
2013
(2) ECS ( 60) (Tri-Del)(183KB)
|
M/s Suncity
Threads Ltd
|
Appellant has not been
able to discharge the onus placed upon it for proving that excise duty has not
been recovered from their customers, though learned advocate has drawn our
attention to a letter written to their jurisdictional Central Excise
authorities indicating that they would not be collecting this amount from
their customers.
|
5
|
2013
(2) ECS ( 66) (Tri-Del)(101KB)
|
M/s Chhata
Sugar Co. Ltd
|
Unjust enrichment is
applicable in rebate claims, as held by Trubunal in
order dated 26.09.12 in case of KisanSahkariChini
Mills- Appeal filed by party rejected
|
6
|
2013
(1) ECS (110) (Tri-Mum)(161KB)
|
Praj Agro Vision Ltd
|
It is well settled
principle of interpretation of statute that a statute has to be construed
without adding any words to it or subtracting any words from it and an
interpretation which makes a part of the statute redundant has to be avoided
|