2016 (12) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - sale of cement at contracted price - unjust enrichment - Held that - I find that the respondents are selling the cement at contracted price i.e. inclusive of duty. Whatever price has been agreed by the respondent with their buyers is the sole consideration of the goods. Further, the Revenue has not given any specific instance that the buyer has taken the credit of higher amount of duty shown in the invoices by the respondent. In that circumstance, I hold that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Amadalavalasa Cooperative Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam 2007 (1) TMI 432 - CESTAT, BANGALORE is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty component discrepancy in invoices.
2. Unjust enrichment in refund claim.
3. Applicability of precedent cases.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute where the respondent, a cement manufacturer, showed a duty component of ?600 per metric ton (MT) in invoices, while the actual duty payable was ?259 per MT during the relevant period. The respondent claimed a refund after reversing self-credited duty upon audit scrutiny. Initially rejected by the adjudicating authority citing unjust enrichment, the refund claim was later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a precedent case. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the duty component was passed on to the buyer as shown in the invoices.

2. The Revenue contended that since the duty component was separately shown in the invoices and passed on to the buyer, the respondent failed to establish non-enrichment. The Revenue relied on a previous tribunal decision to support their argument. However, the respondent maintained the validity of the impugned order, and the case was heard with both parties presenting their arguments.

3. After considering the submissions, the tribunal found that the cement was sold at a contracted price inclusive of duty, with the agreed price being the sole consideration for the goods. The tribunal noted the absence of evidence showing that buyers had taken credit for the higher duty amount on the invoices. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, citing the applicability of a specific precedent case to the circumstances of the current case. As a result, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the tribunal's decision was in favor of the respondent.