9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case. In the present case, unjust enrichment does not arise as the discounts were pre-determined and already known prior to the removal of goods. By respectfully following the above Tribunal's decisions, I hold that unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the order sanctioning the refund and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/563/2007 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2015 - R Periasami, Member (T) For the Petitioner : Ms Radhika Chandrasekaran , Adv For the Respondent : Mr R Subramaniyan, AC (AR) ORDER Per R Periasami This appeal is arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 39/2007 dated 19.04.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and the discounts were given to the customers at the stock point itself and the discounts were known prior to the removal of goods. In their own case, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their refund for assessment year 1995-96 vide order dated 187/1999 dated 01/09/99. The Revenue filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal against the above order and the Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal vide Final Order No. 1103 1104/2000 dated 11.08.2000. The department preferred CMA before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against the order of the Tribunal and the same was dismissed the Revenue appeal vide order dated 15.11.2006. She submits that the refund claim is not hit by unjust enrichment clause as the department allowed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to refund sanctioned after finalization of provisional assessment and credited to the customer welfare fund, whether the refund claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment clause. There is no dispute on the merits that the admissibility of deductions of various discounts was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the OIA 189/03 dated 15.10.03. The period involved in the present case relates to the finalization of provisional assessment for the year 1996-97, which was finalized on 11.01.99. The adjudicating authority has sanctioned the refund on account of finalization of the provisional assessment as per the Commissioner (Appeals) above order, but credited to the consumer welfare fund. Both the adjudicating authority and the lower appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance, unjust enrichment clause will not be applicable. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under:- In this case, the fact that the discount given by the appellant to their dealers regarding clearance of old stocks/prompt payment were in the knowledge of the dealers before the clearance of the vehicle, is not in dispute. The appellant was having a system that the invoices are to be raised on the pre-discounted assessable value of the vehicle and if any discount is entitled to the dealer that will be passed on to the dealers by way of credit notes. In that situation, the claim of the appellant is that duty component in the discount has not been passed on the dealers as the amount of discount has been credited in the accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills (supra) has also held that question of unjust enrichment does not arise in the case of stock transfer. Both the above case laws are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, unjust enrichment does not arise as the discounts were pre-determined and already known prior to the removal of goods. By respectfully following the above Tribunal's decisions, I hold that unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the order sanctioning the refund and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. ( Order pronounced in the open Court on 01.04.2015 ) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
