9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 990 - AT - Central ExciseBar of unjust enrichment - differential duty paid subsequent to the clearance by way of payment under TR-6 challans - Held that - We find that the Tribunal in the series of judgements in the cases of Plas Pack Industries (2004 (2) TMI 125 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ), Silwester Textiles P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in (2003 (5) TMI 305 - CESTAT, MUMBAI), Industrial Cables (2001 (12) TMI 104 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI), Easter Industries Ltd. (1999 (8) TMI 915 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI ) and in the case of Southern Agrifune Indus. Ltd. (2004 (7) TMI 246 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ) has held that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted when the differential duty is paid subsequent to the clearance of the goods. Moreover, in the present case, there is no dispute that in respect of payment of differential duty under protest, whose refund is claimed, no supplementary invoices had been issued. Had such supplementary invoice been issued, a presumption could be made under Section 12 B of the Central Excise Act but in absence of such supplementary invoice, no presumption can be made. We have gone through para-91 of the Apex Court s judgement in the case of Mafatlal Industries (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) cited in the grounds of appeal and we are of the view that the observations of the Apex Court in that para are not applicable to the facts of this case at all. Commissioner s conclusion the differential duty had been paid subsequent to the clearance by way of payment under TR-6 challans, the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
- Differential duty payment under protest - Refund claim rejection by Asstt. Commissioner - Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside Asstt. Commissioner's order - Application of bar of unjust enrichment - Interpretation of Apex Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case - Tribunal's judgments on unjust enrichment in similar cases Differential Duty Payment Under Protest: The respondents, as manufacturers of cotton fabrics, paid duty at lower rates initially but later paid the differential duty under protest following the Department's instruction to pay at a higher rate. The refund claim for the differential duty was filed after the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in their favor. Refund Claim Rejection by Asstt. Commissioner: The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the refund claim for the paid differential duty, leading to an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondents. Commissioner (Appeals) Setting Aside Asstt. Commissioner's Order: The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Asstt. Commissioner's order, allowing the appeal by the respondents. The Commissioner held that the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply in this case as the duty had been paid subsequent to clearance by way of TR-6 challans. Application of Bar of Unjust Enrichment: The issue revolved around whether the bar of unjust enrichment applied in this case. The Tribunal cited various judgments to support the view that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted when the duty is paid after the goods' clearance. Interpretation of Apex Court's Judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Case: The Departmental Representative argued that the observations in para-91 of the Apex Court's judgment in the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case should be applied, emphasizing that the burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment was not discharged by the respondents. Tribunal's Judgments on Unjust Enrichment in Similar Cases: The Tribunal referred to its previous judgments and held that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply when the duty is paid after the goods' clearance. They highlighted that the absence of supplementary invoices for the paid differential duty prevented the presumption of passing on the duty to customers. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision in favor of the respondents. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, emphasizing that the observations of the Apex Court in the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case were not applicable to the facts of this case.
|
