P.S. Bajaj, Member (J) - (1.)In this appeal, the appellants have questioned validity of the impugned order -in -appeal denying them the refund of the excess paid duty amount in question by invoking the principle of unjust enrichment.
(2.)Ld. Counsel has contended that the requisite documents, were placed before the Commissioner (Appeals) i.e. copy of the balance sheet as on 31 -3 -1999, copy of the C.A. Certificate, vouchers, to prove the non passing of incidence of duty by the appellants to the customers, but he has not examined the same by making observations that having been produced before him for the first time, could not be taken for consideration. The Counsel has also referred to the ratio of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of CC, Air Cargo Unit, New Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2003 (155) E.L.T. 523 (Tribunal -Delhi)] and Jaipur Syntex Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur [2002 (143) E.L.T. 605 (Tribunal -Delhi)] and contended that incidence of duty was not passed on by the appellants to the consumers.
(3.)On the other hand, Id. SDK has, while defending the correctness of the impugned order, contended that the evidence now referred by the Id. Counsel was not furnished by the appellants to the adjudicating authority and was produced for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rightly ignored the same.