Prima Pick N. Pack Limited Vs. Cce

Prima Pick N. Pack Limited vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 27, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42970

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/42970
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice
Decided On: Jun 27, 2006
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prima Pick N. Pack Limited

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

.....whereby the refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the goods were cleared as per the approved price list. therefore, the refund is not maintainable.3. the contention of the appellants is that they are engaged in the manufacture of hdpe bags and were supplying to food corporation of india (fci). the appellants filed price list in part-ii, which was approved by the proper officer w.e.f. 30.11.90. subsequent to this approval, the fci revised the prices of the bags downward and the appellants filed revised price list dated 25.3.91 giving effect from 30.11.90. the same was also approved by the revenue. during the month of december, 1990, the appellants cleared hdpe bags to the fci raising the invoice at the rate prevalent at that time. however, the fci after revision of the rates, made payment at the revised rates. the contention is that as the appellants cleared the goods at the lower rates, therefore, they are entitled for the refund.4. the contention of the revenue is that the goods were cleared in the month of december as per the approved price list. therefore, the refund is not refundable. it is also pointed out by the revenue that all the refund claims are subject to the principles of unjust enrichment. the revenue relied upon the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of sahakari khand udyog mandal ltd. v. cce 5. in this case, the appellants cleared the goods at the higher rate to the fci. however, the rates were revised downward. the appellants filed the revised price list covering the period under which the said goods were covered that price list was also good. therefore, it has to he seen at what price, the appellants actually cleared the goods and the refund is also subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment as held by the hon'ble supreme court in the case relied upon by the revenue. the hon'ble supreme court had held that doctrine of unjust enrichment based on equity, thus, irrespective of applicability of section.....

Full Judgment

2. The appellants 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 goods were cleared as per the approved price list. Therefore, the refund is not maintainable.

3. The contention of the appellants is that they are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE bags and were supplying to Food Corporation of India (FCI). The appellants filed price list in Part-II, which was approved by the proper officer w.e.f. 30.11.90. Subsequent to this approval, the FCI revised the prices of the bags downward and the appellants filed revised price list dated 25.3.91 giving effect from 30.11.90. The same was also approved by the Revenue. During the month of December, 1990, the appellants cleared HDPE bags to the FCI raising the invoice at the rate prevalent at that time. However, the FCI after revision of the rates, made payment at the revised rates. The contention is that as the appellants cleared the goods at the lower rates, therefore, they are entitled for the refund.

4. The contention of the Revenue is that the goods were cleared in the month of December as per the approved price list. Therefore, the refund is not refundable. It is also pointed out by the Revenue that all the refund claims are subject to the principles of unjust enrichment. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE 5. In this case, the appellants cleared the goods at the higher rate to the FCI. However, the rates were revised downward. The appellants filed the revised price list covering the period under which the said goods were covered that price list was also good. Therefore, it has to he seen at what price, the appellants actually cleared the goods and the refund is also subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that doctrine of unjust enrichment based on equity, thus, irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, doctrine can be invoked to deny benefit to which a person is not otherwise entitled. Before claiming a relief of refund, assessee to show that he has paid amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on burden on consumers and if such relief not granted, he should suffer loss.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide it afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Prima Pick N. Pack Limited vs Cce Same Subject MRTP Same Judge S Kang, Vice