9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the levy of compounded duty disputed by them. The refund claim was sanctioned, however, as the appellant failed to establish that they had not passed on burden to the buyers, the same were credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Their appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are in appeal before Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the duty was paid for the period 16.12.1998 to 30.09.1999 on 30.03.2000. He argued that duty was paid much after clearance of goods and, therefore, they could not have passed on the incidence of duty to their customers. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Modi Oil & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. R.G. Menon & Co., hereby confirm that the above claims of Rs. 10,83,000/-is on the basis of refund eligible to my client M/s Valson Dyeing Bleaching & Printing Works having its office at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Opp. Dreams Mall, Bhandup (West), Mumbai 400 078. The books of accounts and other documents had been provided and same had been verified which is found to be correct. The above mentioned firm had made the payments as per the demand raised by the Government Department and subsequently no amount either before or after the payment has been recovered from the customers towards duty. Hence, they are not liable to pay anything in excess to the Government Departments in regards to the excise duty. The excise duty refund is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been charged as expenditure. If the same has been charged as expenditure, it would amount to passing of the burden of duty to the Customers. Tribunal in the case of HPCL 2015 (317) ELT 379 has held as follows: - "6.7 In the present case, it is an admitted position that the refund amount due was not reflected in the books of account of HPCL as claims receivable. This implies that the duty paid was shown as current expenditure and formed part of the Profit and Loss account of the assessee. Thus if the claimant himself has treated the refund amount due as expenditure and not as claims receivable , the claimant cannot said to have passed the test of unjust enrichment. This is the settled position in law. The appellant has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
