9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 208 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Section 11B - unjust enrichment - held that - from the original order that appellant have submitted C.A. Certificate as well as their balance sheet. The original authority has verified the said documents and came to the conclusion that the amount of refund has been shown as receivable under the head of loans and advances , the same has been certified by the Chartered Accountant. From the said records, I do not find any reason that what else is required to establish that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person. - has verified and dealt with C.A. Certificate and balance sheet of the appellant and did not find any discrepancy in such documents and relying the same held that incident of duty has not been passed on to any other person, whereas in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), he stated that C.A. Certificate was not understood whereas C.A. Certificate is clearly based on the balance sheet. Moreover Ld. Commissioner has not discussed anything as regard amount shown receivable under the head of loan and advances which is conclusive evidence of proof of not passing of incidence of duty. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has made serious error in not considering the C.A. certificate as well as balance sheet in proper perspective. Therefore impugned order suffers with serious infirmity - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/VSGRAO/58&59/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II. 2. Refund claim for excess duty under Section 11B. 3. Burden of principle of unjust enrichment. 4. Verification of C.A. Certificate and balance sheet. 5. Application of unjust enrichment in refund eligibility. Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/VSGRAO/58&59/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-II, where the Revenue's appeal was allowed, leading to the appellant filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Refund Claim for Excess Duty The appellant filed a refund claim for amounts of Rs. 1,29,676/- and Rs. 77,788/- with the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, under Section 11B, which was initially allowed by the adjudicating Authority due to excess payment of duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of the principle of unjust enrichment, resulting in the Revenue's appeal being allowed. Issue 3: Burden of Unjust Enrichment The Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had submitted a C.A. certificate and balance sheet showing the refund amount as receivable under "loan and advances," indicating that the duty incidence was not passed on to any other person. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal based on the grounds that the C.A. certificate was not properly understood, despite the balance sheet providing conclusive evidence of no passing of duty incidence. Issue 4: Verification of C.A. Certificate and Balance Sheet The original authority verified the C.A. Certificate and balance sheet, concluding that the refund amount was shown as receivable under "loans and advances," certified by the Chartered Accountant. The authority found no reason to doubt that the duty incidence was not passed on to any other person, as evidenced by the records presented. Issue 5: Application of Unjust Enrichment The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to any other person, citing the commercial practice of recovering excess duty from buyers. However, the Tribunal found serious errors in the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the C.A. certificate and balance sheet were not properly considered, leading to the appeal being allowed. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and legal principles discussed during the proceedings.
|
