9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification there was no cause of action in favour of the appellant to make any such application for refund. As a natural consequence, therefore, the period of limitation has to be reckoned from 31.10.2000. It is not in dispute that application for refund was filed on 19.06.2001 and the period of limitation at that time was one year. The applications for refund were, therefore, clearly within limitation. We do not understand the logic or rationale behind the order of the CESTAT counting the period from July, 1999 for which the excess amount was sought to be refunded. The order of the CESTAT is, therefore, palpably wrong and erroneous in law - appellant is entitled to succeed in the claim of entire amount of ₹ 26,23,366/-. The aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/- for the period from 21.06.2000 to 31.10.2000. However, the sanctioned claim was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on account of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, who partly allowed the appeal. He held that there was no evidence that buyers had passed on the incidence of duty to any other person (buyer) and, therefore, there was no unjust enrichment. On merits, however, he allowed the part refund to the extent of ₹ 6,30,981/- only holding that remaining claim was time-barred. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'), which has dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CESTAT is, therefore, palpably wrong and erroneous in law. As noted above, adjudicating authority while rejecting the application of the appellant for refund had also rejected it on account of unjust enrichment. In other words, it held that the appellant had passed on the burden of excess excise duty to the buyers. However, this finding of the Deputy Commissioner was overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals), on the basis of evidence produced with categorical finding that the burden was not passed on inasmuch as the credit of the excess amount was given to the two public sector undertakings to whom the cylinders were supplied, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It would, therefore, be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
