JCT LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the impugned Order -in -Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the Order -in -Original of the Assistant Commissioner who rejected the refund claim of the appellant on the ground of unjust enrichment.

(2.) THE facts are not much in dispute. The appellants during the period April 1990 to June 1990 paid excess excise duty at the time of clearance of their goods (polyester staple fibre) manufactured out of duty paid Purified Terephathelic Acid (PTA). They filed refund claim of Rs. 23,81,776.35 on 22.4.97. The Assistant Commissioner rejected their claim vide Order -in -Original dated 31.5.2000 on the ground of unjust enrichment for having passed on burden of duty of the customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed that order.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be invoked for rejecting refund claim of the appellant on the ground, - (i) the invoices issued by the appellant did not indicate the duty elements separately as composite price was recorded therein (ii) there had been no increase of sale price even after payment of duty rather there was a decrease in the price. To substantiate his contention, the Counsel has referred to the ratio of law laid down in Infar (India) Ltd. v. CCE., Delhi -2002 -TaxindiaOnline - -CESTAT -Del Chandigarh v. Metro Tyres 2002 -TaindiaOnline - -Chandigarh v. Pawan Tyres - 2002 (126) ELT 1061, Sarvaraya Sugar Mills Ltd. A.P., v. CCE., Hydrabad - 2003 (85) ECC 743. On the other hand, learned DR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that no evidence has been adduced by the appellants in spite of the directions given earlier by the Tribunal remanding the matter for fresh decision, to prove that burden of duty had not been passed on the them, to the customers.