Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2004 (9) TMI 147 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claims by the Commissioner (Appeals)
- Applicability of Condition No. 10 of Notification No. 5/99-C.E.
- Payment of duty under protest and bar of limitation
- Principle of unjust enrichment
- Premature refund claims

Analysis:

1. Rejection of Refund Claims: The appellants filed three refund claims which were rejected by the adjudicating authority and affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The grounds for rejection included the failure to establish that the amount reversed/paid was not payable, time-barred refund claims, and inability to prove that duty incidence was not passed on.

2. Applicability of Condition No. 10: The appellants voluntarily opted for concessional duty under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. and reversed credits to comply with Condition No. 10. They were required to satisfy this condition to avail the benefit of the notification, which prohibited availing credit on specified products.

3. Payment of Duty Under Protest and Bar of Limitation: The appellants contended that duty was paid under protest and hence the limitation did not apply. However, the tribunal found that the payment was voluntary and not made under protest as per Rule 233B, leading to the rejection of the claim under the proviso to Section 11B.

4. Principle of Unjust Enrichment: The tribunal held that the appellants failed to prove that duty incidence was not passed on to consumers, applying the principle of unjust enrichment. The claim for refund of duty paid erroneously earlier was rejected due to lack of evidence that the duty did not affect the final product cost.

5. Premature Refund Claims: Refund claims of certain amounts were deemed premature as they were subject to pending adjudication. The tribunal upheld the rejection of these claims, stating they could only be claimed after completion of adjudication.

6. Final Decision: The tribunal upheld the impugned orders, dismissing the appeals of the appellants as lacking merit based on the detailed analysis and findings on each issue presented during the proceedings.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates