9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment. It is then, contended by the revenue, that mechanism of issuance of debit note and credit note, if countenanced, it will open flood gates for pilferage of revenue. Firstly, we do not agree with the preposition, that it can open flood gates, in as much as, where false, fictitious or shame Debit note and credit note are issued for adjustment, the revenue can very well lead evidence, or can lead evidence in rebuttal. Simply because the revenue fails, and is not able to rebut evidence, it cannot be assumed, that it will open flood gates for pilferage of the revenue. - Refund to be allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - E/1411/2011 - A/10319/WZB/AHD/2013 - Dated:- 15-2-2013 - M V Ravindran, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms Mallika ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside the impugned order. 4. Ld. Commissioner (A.R.) would submit that the question of unjust enrichment has not been considered properly by the first appellate authority in as much the respondent purchaser had taken the cenvat credit and reversed the amount along with interest. It is not very clear that whether the purchaser has passed on effect of such reversal to ultimate consumer or not. In the absence of any such evidence, it is her submission that the question of unjust enrichment arises. It is also her submission that the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of S. Kumar Ltd. and Garasim Industries very clearly laid down a law on subsequent raising of credit note will not eliminate the bar of unjust enrichment as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent, would indicate that the respondent has not been unjust enriched. As regards the claim in the grounds of appeal by the Revenue that M/s. Element Chemilink Pvt. Ltd. would have passed on the amount to their purchasers seemed to be farfetched in as much as if they have not paid the amount to respondent herein, they would not have charged to their Profit Loss account. I find that the grounds on which the impugned order is sought to be challenged is devoid of merits and the findings of the first appellate authority in paragraph 5.1, 5.2 5.3 are well reasoned. 9. I also find that the issue is now settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of A.K. Spintex Ltd. wherein their lordships have settled the law as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
