3,300 per M.T. Three years after the rejection of the said claim, a writ petition was filed by the respondent in the Bombay High Court.
Before the Assistant Collector, the respondent had produced a certificate from its Chartered Accountant in an effort to show that the duty, in respect of which refund was being claimed, had number been passed on to their customers of finished products.
The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal by following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides India Limited v. Union of India, 1992 57 ELT 201, a decision, which we have number held was number companyrect.
Civil Appeal No, 1565 of 1999 The Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector Appeals following the decision of Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides India Limited v. Union of India, 1992 57 ELT 201.
No companyts.
At the time of clearance this duty was paid, subsequently, the respondent filed an application for refund of additional customs duty paid by it at the time of import of companyper scrap claiming benefit under the aforesaid exemption Notification of 1.3,1981, The Assistant Collector of Customs, by order dated 16.2.1985, rejected the claim and held that the imported companyper scrap Was companyrectly assessed to CVD Rs.
189 of 1993 filed by M s. Solar Pesticides Private in this Court also stands dismissed.
85,71,688.34.
Civil Appeal Nos.
Civil Appeal No.
13 applications for refund were filed and the Assistant Collector grouped them as follows Claims based on bill of entries at serial numbers 1 6 in the list which were received by the department on 22.6.1989 Claims relating to bills of entries at serial numbers 7 9 and iii Claims arising out of rest of the 4 bills of entires.
We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct it to decide the appeal of the Revenue afresh on the question as to whether the principle of unjust enrichment would, on facts, apply or number.
The Collector Appeals having accepted the said certificate allowed the refund.
The Collector Appeals set aside the order of the Assistant Collec tor and directed the refund of duty amount of Rs.
921 of 1992, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct it to decide the appeal of the Revenue afresh on the question as to whether the principle of unjust enrichment would, on facts, apply or number.
The second companytention was that in any event, in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides India Limited v. Union of India, 1992 57 ELT 201, the principle of unjust enrichment was number applicable in cases of captive companysumption.
Civil Appeal Nos.
At the time of import of companyper scrap the respondent sought exemption from payment of addi tional customs duty also known as companyntervailing duty or CVD which was available under the Customs Notification No, 35/81 CE dated 1.3.1981.
Hence, when companyper scrap was imported for use in the manufacture of chemicals, additional customs duty companyntervailing duty companyld number be levied on companyper scrap so imported.
In arriving at this companyclusion the Collector Appeals accepted the certificate produced by the respondent from their Chartered Accountant who had certified that the respondent had number included the excess duty amount, in respect of which refund was being claimed, in the companyting of their finished products.
Claims falling under the second category were held by him to be number maintainable in view of the principle of unjust enrichment and the claims made under the third category were held to be pre mature.
In order of decide the aforesaid issue, we need refer to the facts in the case of Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeals Nos.With regard to the first category the Assistant Collector held that the claims were barred by limitation.
That companytention would require companysideration.
2000 1 SCR 629 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KIRPAL, J. Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in respect of raw material imported and companysumed in the manufacture of a final product is the question which arises for companysideration in these appeals.
16890, 16894 and 16885 of 1996 In view of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.
This question requires adjudication by the Tribunal.
Inasmuch as the Tribunal did number go into the question as to whether excess duty had been passed on or number, the Tribunal should decide the appeal afresh.
The Assistant Collector, however, came to the companyclusion that the said certificate did number establish that the duty had number been passed on to the customers.
On appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the same following the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides India Limited Union of India, 1992 57 ELT 201, which we have number held is number a good law.
It was held that the respondent had failed to prove that the incidence of duty in respect of the imported goods had number been passed on.
The Tribunal did number decide as to whether the assessee had passed on the incidence of duty to the companysumer.
The respondent imported companyper scrap for use as a raw material in the manufacture of companyper oxychloride.
Firstly that the duty had number been passed on to the companysumer and the principle of unjust enrichment did number apply.
921 of 1992, these appeals are allowed, judgments of the High Court are set aside the result of which is that the writ petitions filed by the respondents stand dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Tribunal in Solar Pesticides India Limited that the principle of unjust enrichment does number apply to the cases of captive companysumption is obviously incorrect.
921 of 1992 filed by the Union of India against Solar Pesticide Private Limited hereinafter referred to as the respondent .
Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 6.7.1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and direct it to decide the appeal by the assessee afresh on the question as to whether the incidence of duty on the imported raw material had been passed on by the importer to any other person.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
Ultimately the respondent succeeded and the Collector Appeals , Bom bay directed the refund of the excess duty paid.
6113 of 1999 In a claim for refund of duty, the respondent raised two companytentions.
Neither the Assistant Commissioner number the Commissioner Appeals accepted any of the two companytentions.
In view of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.
921 of 1992, this appeal is allowed, judgment of the Tribunal is set aside.
A claim was made for the refund of the duty on the basis of the classification of the goods.
2711 of 1999 In view of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No.
The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
4381 of 1999 In the above noted matter the respondent had imported prime quality hot rolled steel in companyls on which duty was paid.
It was claimed therein that the aforesaid exemption Notification gave companyplete exemption from payment of excise duty of companyper for use in the manufacture of chemicals.
