CEA No. 10 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : CEA No. 10 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 09, 2008. Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-III, Gurgaon .... Appellant Vs. M/s Arctic India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for Indirect Taxation. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law :- “(i) Whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable when credit notes have been issued to the buyers subsequently ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the incidence of duty has not been passed by the respondents to the buyers as held by the Hon'ble Tribunal ?” CEA No. 10 of 2008 2 2. The assessee filed claim for refund of Rs.12584/- on 12.11.1997. The adjudicating authority observed that incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyer and, hence, refund could not be claimed. Plea of the assessee that assessee had issued a credit note to the buyer was rejected on the ground that the credit note was subsequent to the clearance of goods. The order of the adjudicating authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority, but on further appeal, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee. It was observed that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Question whether incidence of duty has been passed or not, is basically a question of fact, even otherwise, having regard to the fact that amount involved is insignificant, we do not find any ground to interfere. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 09, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE