Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise& ... vs Dhariwal Industries Ltd on 31 March, 2006
Author: J.M.Panchal
Bench: J.M.Panchal
TAXAP/344/2006 1/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL No. 344 of 2006
==============================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE& CUSTOMS - Appellant
Versus
DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. - Respondent
==============================================================
Appearance :
MR YN RAVANI for Appellant.
None for Opponent(s) : 1,
==================================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date : 31/03/2006
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL) Heard Mr.Y.N.Ravani, learned counsel for the appellant.
ADMITTED.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, has substantially erred in law in holding that the burden of duty had not been passed on by the respondent to the dealers/buyers ?
TAXAP/344/2006 2/2 ORDER
(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in holding that principle of "unjust enrichment" is not applicable to the facts of the case because the respondent had filed an affidavit stating that burden of duty had not been passed on to its dealers/customers by maintaining uniformity of price ?
(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has substantially erred in law in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of C.Ex., Mumbai-II v/s. Allied Photographics India Ltd. 2004(166) ELT 3 (SC), wherein it has been held that uniformity of price before and after assessment does not lead to an inevitable conclusion that duty has not been passed on to the buyers ?
[J.M.PANCHAL,J.] [BANKIM N.MEHTA,J.] (patel)