Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.61 seconds)
M/S. Cosmo Films Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 13 March, 2015 cites

Cce, Jaipur Ii vs M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited on 15 May, 2013

26. .Thus, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra), Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and S.R.F. Limited (supra) conclusively establish that all claims of refund under the Customs Act must pass the test of unjust enrichment contained in Section 27 of the Act and unless it is established that the duty element has not been passed on to others, no refund can be granted. In the light of the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court, it is not open to the Petitioners to contend that in respect of the refund arising under Section 18 of the Customs Act, the principles of unjust enrichment contained in Section 27 of the Customs Act are not applicable. In the present case, since the incidence of duty element has been admittedly passed on to the consumer, no direction can be given to the Customs Authorities to refund the amount as it results in unjust enrichment to the Petitioners.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Bussa Overseas And Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 15 September, 2003

26. .Thus, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra), Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and S.R.F. Limited (supra) conclusively establish that all claims of refund under the Customs Act must pass the test of unjust enrichment contained in Section 27 of the Act and unless it is established that the duty element has not been passed on to others, no refund can be granted. In the light of the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court, it is not open to the Petitioners to contend that in respect of the refund arising under Section 18 of the Customs Act, the principles of unjust enrichment contained in Section 27 of the Customs Act are not applicable. In the present case, since the incidence of duty element has been admittedly passed on to the consumer, no direction can be given to the Customs Authorities to refund the amount as it results in unjust enrichment to the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 39 - J P Devadhar - Full Document
1   2 Next