9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir future payments - Thus, they got back the money/amount paid in excess earlier - the excess duty amount initially paid by IOC has not been passed on to the buyer Coal India - Coal India has not also taken any Cenvat Credit on the duty paid on explosives and those were consumed by them - the document said to be credit notes is actually a tax invoice showing the amount excess collected to enable Coal India to adjust it with the future payments. Following CCEx., Nagpur Vs. Solar Capital Ltd. [2006 (2) TMI 522 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and Special Blasts Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Raipur [2005 (3) TMI 496 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] - bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted – It is not similar to the ‘Credit Notes’ referred in the Board’s Circular - it is a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Aggrieved, the Appellants preferred appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the evidences on record, allowed their appeal. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed take note of the fact that even though the excess amount of duty has been returned to their customer M/s CIL through Credit Notes, subsequently, but, the incidence of duty, initially passed on, cannot be neutralized by way issuance of Credit Notes subsequently, and thus the principle of unjust enrichment is attracted. He has further submitted that CBEC in the Circular No.317/33/97-CX dated 18.06.1997, has clarified that by issuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in detail the issue, in particular on the purpose and object of the Credit Notes issued by the Appellants to its customer, and then recorded a categorical finding that it is only with an intention for settlement and payment and against future liability. Distinguishing the use of Credit Notes in the sense as mentioned in the Circular issued by the Board, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded the finding at Para 12, as follows : 12. I find that in the course of final assessment in some period the price was finalized at a higher side and in those cases, appellant was made to pay excess duty. Similarly, in some period (as in the present case), the price was finalized at a lower side and since the appellant initially cleared at a hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o several decisions of this Tribunal viz. CCEx., Nagpur Vs. Solar Capital Ltd. reported in 2006 (205) ELT 403 (Tri.-Mum.) and Special Blasts Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Raipur reported in 2005 (192) ELT 331 (Tri.-Del.), wherein, under similar circumstances, it has been held that bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue could not produce any decision contrary to the ones referred to by the ld. Advocate as well as relied upon by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order. Hence, I do not see any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the orders of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are upheld and the Revenue s Appeals against the said orders are dismissed. (Pronounced in the open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
