News Flash
  • Result of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation Examination held on 15.03.2019 Click Here
  • Final Report on Two Swachhta Projects for the F.Y. 2018-19 Report | Format
  • In order to reduce illicit cultivation, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) has issued a Whatsapp No : 9686505002 for uploading of images of illicit cultivated area of opium and poppy by general public.
  • REQUEST FOR EMPANELMENT (RFE) Of Telecom Service Providers for Supply of 3G/4G SIM Cards to CBIC offices. Bids to be submitted till 08.04.2019 by 1:00 p.m
  • Appointment of common authority for the purpose of exercise of powers under sections 73,74, 75 and 76 of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Draft Seniority list of IRS (C&CE) officers in the grade of Joint Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 Click Here
  • NACIN, Mumbai, under aegis of Multi- Disciplinary School of Economic Intelligence (MDSEI), is conducting a two days Workshop on the topic “Analysis of GST Frauds involving Fake Invoices” on 18th and 19th March, 2019 at NACIN Complex, Mumbai.Click Here
View all

Unjust-Enrichment

ECS subject-wise list of Central Excise cases

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