2007 (1) TMI 57 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Appellant claim for the refund on the amount of excise duty paid by him - After considering evidences matter allowed by way remand to Commissioner (Appeals)

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by adjudicating authority.
2. Debiting refund claims to Consumer Welfare Account.
3. Consideration of certificate of profit and loss account.
4. Relevance of CA's certificate and balance sheet.
5. Application of unjust enrichment principle.
6. Interpretation of profit and loss account entries.
7. Evaluation of evidences by Commissioner (Appeals).
8. Decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed appeals against the rejection of the refund claim. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claims but debited them to the Consumer Welfare Account, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant submitted a certificate of profit and loss account to establish that the duty amount was not recovered from any other parties. The appellant's advocate argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly rejected these evidences.

3. The advocate cited judgments from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal to support the argument that a certificate of CA and balance sheet showing the refund claim as excise duty should not be considered unjust enrichment.

4. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) by referring to a case where expenses paid by a company are typically accounted for in the profit and loss account. The DR argued that the profit and loss account did not indicate the refund amount as an expense, justifying the rejection of the refund claim.

5. The Tribunal found that the appellant's balance sheet indicated an "Excise Duty Protest Gallery" as of a specific date, with a CA's certificate confirming that the duty amount had not been charged to the profit and loss account. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized the importance of considering the evidence presented.

6. The Tribunal observed that the lower appellate authority ignored crucial details in the appellant's balance sheet, leading to a lack of proper evaluation of the case. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the refund claim in light of relevant decisions, ultimately allowing the appeals by way of remand.