9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (12) TMI 194 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is the denial of a refund claim by the original adjudicating authority on the ground of unjust enrichment due to an excess payment of excise duty by the appellant-company. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim based on the buyers' refusal to provide a certificate confirming they had taken credit for the duty paid by the appellants. Summary: The appellant-company entered into a contract with M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. for the supply of goods inclusive of taxes like excise duties. The appellant paid duty on the entire contract value instead of treating it as a cum-duty price, resulting in an excess payment of Rs. 53,777.00. The refund claim was rejected by the original authority citing unjust enrichment, as the burden of proof regarding passing on the duty to buyers was not met. During the appeal proceedings, a Certificate from a Chartered Accountant was submitted stating that the duty burden was not passed on to the buyers. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, emphasizing the lack of a certificate from buyers confirming they had taken credit for the duty paid. The appellant argued that the buyers not taking Modvat credit was not a reason for denial mentioned in the show cause notice. The appellant contended that they bore the excess duty burden themselves, as the goods were supplied at a contract price regardless of the duty paid. The Chartered Accountant's Certificate was presented but ignored by the authorities. The Tribunal referred to previous cases where such certificates were accepted. The Tribunal found that the goods were supplied under a contract price, and the buyers paid the contracted price irrespective of the duty amount paid by the appellant. It was concluded that the excess duty was not recovered from customers. The appellant's stand on buyers not availing duty credit was accepted, noting that this ground was not part of the original notice or order. In light of the above, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants.
|
