ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The refund claim by the appellant in this case was denied on the ground that the appellants had passed on the burden of duty to the buyers. Before the original as well as the appellate authority the claim was made that credit notes had already been issued to the buyers in effect taking the burden back on the manufacturer. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, relying upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of
CCE v. Addison and Company denied the claim of the assessee. Hence this appeal.
2. Shri Parakh states that not only the credit notes were issued to the buyers but that credit taken by the buyers were also reversed. He relies upon the Tribunal’s later decision in the case of CCE v. Oswal Cotton Spinning Mills .
3. In the judgment cited by the advocate, the ratio of CCE v. Addison and Company has been departed from and in identical circumstances it has been held that principles of unjust enrichment do not apply.
4. I further find that the cited judgment of CCE v. Addison and Company was set aside by the Madras High Court while deciding a reference on a question arising from that judgment .
5. Following the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Oswal Cotton Spinning Mills this appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, according to law.