News Flash
  • Inviting entries for the inaugural issue of NACIN Journal. -Click here
  • Webinar on "Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)" on 3rd June 2020". -Click here
  • Preventive measures to be taken to contain the spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Attendance. -Click here
  • Effective use of "Aarogya Setu" App for breaking the chain of transmission of COVID-19. Click here
  • Notifications issued for providing further relief during COVID-19 epidemic
  • Change of telephone numbers of Zonal Training Institute and Centre of Excellence, NACIN, New Delhi. Click here
  • Notification issued for bringing into force the rules pertaining to FORM GST PMT-09 Click here
  • CBIC guidelines for Personal Hearings through video conferencing Click here
  • In view of the exigency due to outbreak of Corona Virus and, in order to facilitate the trade, CBIC has undertaken various Trade Facilitation measures. All Circulars & Notifications released under COVID-19 advisory can be accessed from COVID-19 Measures         
  • Updating of Asset Register as on 31.03.2020 (Covering Letter). Click here
  • Updating of Asset Register as on 31.03.2020 (New Format). 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