9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Authorities on the ground that Central Excise Duty paid on the provisional price of goods was more than the finalization of price verification formula approved by Madhyanchal vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL). The refund application filed by the appellant was allowed by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise vide order dated 02.07.2012. In the said order, it has been observed that after finalization of prices by MVVNL, the respondents issued credit notes for the principal amount and also for the differential duty. Hence, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will have no application for sanction of the refund claim. Feeling aggrieved with the said adjudication order, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Commissioner (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact of non-passing of duty incidence to the buyer of the goods having been produced by the appellant, the refund application cannot be denied on the ground of doctrine of unjust enrichment. To substantiate his above stand, the ld. Advocate for the appellant has relied various authoritative judgements of the judicial forums. 3. Per contra, the ld. D.R. Shri M.S. Negi appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Fenner India Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2014 (305) ELT 524 (Mad.) to substantiate the stand of Revenue that though the appellant has produced the credit note to its buyer, but corresponding debit notes has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such the responsibility of proving that the incidence has not been passed on, has been duly satisfied by the appellant. Thus, in my view, the amount of refund, instead of crediting to the consumer welfare fund, be allowed to the appellant as refund. There is no prohibition/restriction in section 11B of the Act that credit note cannot be issued at a later date than the date of supply of the goods. In absence of any prohibition in the statute, denial of refund benefit to the appellant is contrary to the statutory mandates. I also find from the impugned order that the ld. Commissioner (A) has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 1994 (71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
