9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (3) TMI 284 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved: Classification of goods under Chapter 84 or Chapter 39.17, entitlement to exemption under Notifications No. 46/94 and 52/95, unjust enrichment in refund claim.
Classification Dispute: The case involved a dispute between the manufacturers of Drip Irrigation/Sprinkler Irrigation and PVC/HDPE/LDPE pipes and the revenue regarding the classification of the goods manufactured. The manufacturers claimed exemption under Notifications No. 46/94 and 52/95, asserting that their goods are classifiable under Chapter 84. However, the Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Chapter 39.17, leading to a demand of Rs. 17,41,397. The CESTAT, Chennai ruled in favor of the manufacturers, holding that the goods fell under Chapter 84.24, allowing their claim for nil rate of duty. Refund Claim and Unjust Enrichment: Following the favorable CESTAT order, the manufacturers filed a refund claim application, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner citing a procedural lapse under Rule 233B for payment of duty under protest. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the duty was indeed paid under protest and that there was no time bar for the claim. The Commissioner further determined that the duty burden had not been passed on to the customers, making the manufacturers eligible for the refund. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the burden of duty had been transferred to the customers due to the inclusion of duty in the price of the final product. Judgment: Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal found that the duty had indeed been paid under protest, eliminating any time bar issue. Regarding unjust enrichment, it was established that the duty burden had not been passed on to the buyers, as evidenced by the fixed prices set by the Ministry of Agriculture and confirmed by the Chartered Accountant's certificate and profit and loss account. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), deeming the Revenue's appeal to be without merit and rejecting it accordingly.
|
