Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Vikrant Tyres vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 31 October, 2001
JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. C.Cus 916/97 dated 21.8.97 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim of Rs. 5,385/- on the ground that the claim is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment and therefore has directed the amounts to be transferred to the consumer Welfare Fund. The appellants had imported spares for presses and had claimed the same to be pressure reducing valve for classification under Sub Heading 8481.10 while the department has classified under 8481.80. However, the claim was rejected ultimately by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of unjust enrighment as they have utilised the item captively and for such captive consumption, refund cannot be granted to them.
2. We have heard the Manager of the company and Ld. SDR. The representative of the company submits that although they have consumed the item captively, yet the duty element have not been passed on to the consumers and hence they are entitled to the benefit of refund. On the other hand, Ld. SDR points out that the issue is no longer res integra and the Apex Court in the case of VOI v. Solar Pesticides as reported in 2000 (116) ELT 401 have held that even for captive consumption, the provisions of unjust enrichment would be attracted. Ld. SDR submits that in view of the latest ruling of the Apex Court, the appellants will not be entitled for the refund.
3. On a careful consideration, we agree with Ld. SDR as the matter is no longer res integra as the issue is now settled by the Apex Court rendered in the case of UOI v. Solar Pesticides (supra). There is no denial of the fact that the item has been captively consumed and therefore the citation clearly applies and the refund will not be eligible for the appellants. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
4. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)