9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of revenue deposit as same was not capitalized alongwith the value of plant and machinery. As regard inconsistency between two C.A. certificate pointed out by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) and made sole ground for rejection of the appellant’s claim, we are of the view that once it is established from the books of account of the appellant that the amount of Revenue deposit has been undisputedly shown as deposit with government authorities under the head of loans and advances in the balance sheet it is sufficient to conclude that the incidence of said revenue deposit has not been passed on to any other person. - appellant, on the basis of record produced before, made us satisfied that incidence of revenue deposit has not been passed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue s appeal was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2001/MCH dated 2/1/2001. The department challenged the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) before the CESTAT and said appeal was rejected by this Tribunal vide order No. C-I/287/WZB/2002 dated 23/1/2002. The appellant filed writ petition No. 1149/2003 in the Mumbai High Court for the enforcement of the final order dated 23/1/2002 which was remanded by the Hon ble High Court to CESTAT for consideration of appeal on merit. This Tribunal vide it s order No. A/465/WZB/06-C-II(CSTB) dated 8/6/2006 did not upset the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) and the Revenues appeal was rejected. The said order dated 8/6/2006 of the Tribunal was not further challenged by the Revenue therefore the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achinery and therefore once the depreciation is claimed by the appellant it would amount to passing on the incidence to the consumers indirectly. With these observations lower authority has concluded that appellant has failed to show that the burden has not been passed on to the consumer. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original dated 26/3/3008 the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order-in-Appeals dated 30/12/2008 set aside the order-in-original and directed the original authority to take note of all the evidences of ground of unjust enrichment and pass a speaking order. The said order-in-appeal dated 30/12/2008 was challenged by the Revenue before the CESTAT, the CESTAT vide order No. A/201-203/09 /CSTB/C-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 169.62 lacs. In this regard Ld Cousnel submits that there is apparent error in the C.A. Certificate dated 6/5/2008 however there is no mistake in the books of account wherein the amount of Revenue deposit has been continuously shown throughout the period under the head of balance and deposit with the government authorities in schedule 9 of the balance sheet. He submits that as far as this position is concerned there is no dispute in the books of accounts. He submits that original authority also held that merely on the basis of C.A. certificate, it cannot be established that incidence of amount to be refunded has not been passed on or otherwise. Therefore, once it is established from the books of accounts that the amount has been shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/5/2008 issued Mahesh A. Mehta Co. However, on the basis of all the records produced by the appellant before us such as balance sheet, ledgers, general vouchers and account for plant and machinery etc., it is very clear that the appellant has accounted for the amount of Revenue deposit under the head of loans and advances, which can also be seen from bifurcation of the total amount shown in the balance sheet. From this it is clear that the amount of Revenue deposit has not been booked by the appellant as expenditure in the profit and loss account. As regard the contention of the original authority that the appellant has claimed the depreciation, it is observed from the ledger account of plant and machinery that initially the total val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard the unjust enrichment. There can be error in the C.A. certificate but books of accounts, which has been audited is concluding proof that incidence of revenue deposit has not been passed on to any other person. We are therefore of the considered view that the appellant, on the basis of record produced before, made us satisfied that incidence of revenue deposit has not been passed on to any other person. In view of the above discussions, we remand the matter to the original authority to decide the refund claim of the appellant afresh taking into consideration the books of accounts. The appellant shall submit all the records such as balance sheet, ledgers, general vouchers etc. before the adjudicating authority within 15 days from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
