9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 878 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Refund sanctioned by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - appellants have produced letters from their customers who have certified that they have paid the CVD amount calculated @ ₹ 30 per Sq Meter and not @ 16% Adv. In this situation the tribunal decision relied upon by the appellants in the case of Alstom Ltd. vs. CCE Allahabad - 2004 (4) TMI 127 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI is relevant. In the said decision the Tribunal held that bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable when buyers never paid the duty amount. I therefore find that the appellants have produced sufficient documentary evidence to show that the incidence of duty has not been passed onto the customers. Also the adjudicating authority has mentioned about the accounting treatment given to duty paid on expenditure and not as receivable and observed that hence there is chance of it being passed on indirectly. - Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue of bar of unjust enrichment on basis of evidence therefore, I hold that the respondent has passed of unjust enrichment as they have not passed the duty burden on the customers - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refund claim sanctioned by Commissioner (Appeals) challenged by Revenue. 2. Entitlement to exemption under Notification 6/02 dated 01.03.2002. 3. Failure to pass bar of unjust enrichment. Analysis: Issue 1: Refund claim sanctioned by Commissioner (Appeals) challenged by Revenue The case involves a dispute where the respondent, a 100% EOU and manufacturer of granite and marble slabs, imported marble slabs and cleared them in DTA on payment of CVD. The Revenue challenged the refund claim filed by the respondent, which was initially sanctioned by the Commissioner (Appeals). The main contention was regarding the payment of CVD at a rate of 16% adv, which the respondent paid under protest. The adjudication held that the respondents were entitled to an exemption under Notification 6/02 dated 01.03.2002, leading to a refund claim for the excess duty paid. The Revenue disputed the refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment, despite the earlier order confirming the respondent's entitlement to the exemption. Issue 2: Entitlement to exemption under Notification 6/02 dated 01.03.2002 The central issue revolved around the entitlement of the respondents to the benefit of Notification 6/02 dated 01.03.2002. The order dated 16.08.2004 confirmed the respondents' eligibility for this exemption, a decision that was accepted by the Revenue and had attained finality. The Revenue's challenge on this ground was deemed unnecessary as the issue had been settled conclusively in favor of the respondents. Therefore, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the said notification, and the Revenue's objection on this count was dismissed. Issue 3: Failure to pass bar of unjust enrichment The critical aspect of the case involved the examination of whether the respondent had passed the bar of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) thoroughly reviewed the evidence, including invoices, PLA account, and a C.A.'s certificate confirming that the duty incidence had not been transferred to customers. The Commissioner relied on precedents and documentary evidence to conclude that the respondents had not shifted the duty burden to customers. The tribunal's decisions in similar cases supported the finding that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply in this scenario. Consequently, the impugned order upholding the refund claim was deemed valid, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the lack of merit in their argument regarding unjust enrichment. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed in the case, focusing on the refund claim, entitlement to exemption, and the bar of unjust enrichment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies involved.
|
