Executive Engineer Vs. Cce

Executive Engineer vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 06, 2004

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/36452

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/36452
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice, A T V.K.
Decided On: Sep 06, 2004
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Executive Engineer

Respondent

Cce

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(99)ECC232

Excerpt

1. the appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to prove that burden of duty has been passed on to the customers. the only contention of the appellant is that the goods are captively consumed, therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable.2. we find that the hon'ble supreme court in the case of uoi v. solar pesticide pvt. ltd., 2000 (116) elt 401 held that principle of unjust enrichment is applicable in the case of captive consumption also. the commissioner (appeals) in the impugned order held that the appellant have recovered the amount of central excise duty from their customers in the cost of the power supplied to them. the cost of generation and distribution of power is taken into consideration while fixing the rate of power at which the appellants were supplying the power to the customers. this finding is not controverted by the appellant.therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to prove that burden of duty has been passed on to the customers. The only contention of the appellant is that the goods are captively consumed, therefore, the principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable.

2. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (116) ELT 401 held that principle of unjust enrichment is applicable in the case of captive consumption also. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the appellant have recovered the amount of Central Excise duty from their customers in the cost of the power supplied to them. The cost of generation and distribution of power is taken into consideration while fixing the rate of power at which the appellants were supplying the power to the customers. This finding is not controverted by the appellant.

Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Executive Engineer vs Cce Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, Vice, A T V.K.