9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... debit note issued by the principal to the appellant. If this transaction is correct then there is no reason to say that incidence of duty paid by the appellant has been passed on to either to the principal or to any other person. I failed to understand if the duty paid by the appellant and initially recovered but subsequently duty was returned back to the recipient of the goods, how the said amount can be recovered from any other person unless until it is proved by the department on the basis of tangible evidence. By applying the various judgments, I am of the view that both the lower authorities wrongly credited refund amount into consumer welfare fund. As I stated above, if the transaction of debit note is not found to be incorrect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incipal thereafter they claimed refund of said duty from the department. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund claim but credited it into consumer welfare fund under Section 11B. Aggrieved by the decision of the Adjudicating authority, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who concurring with the findings of the Adjudicating authority dismissed the appeal of the appellant therefore appellant is before me. 3. Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no unjust enrichment existing in the present case for the reason that whatsoever duty amount was initially collected by the appellant from their principal was returnable to the principal as per the mutual understanding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri. Ashutosh Nath, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that once the duty was paid by the appellant and the same was recovered from their principal the incidence of duty stood passed on therefore refund claim is hit by unjust enrichment. Both the lower authorities have rightly credited the refund amount into consumer welfare fund. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on following judgments: (a) Fenner India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2014(305) ELT 524(Mad.)] (b) M/s. videocon International Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad [2014-TIOL-50-CESTAT-MUM] (c) TVS Electronics Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Chennai[2012(286) EL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the department on the basis of tangible evidence. I find that the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel support his case as in those judgments there was prearrangement due to the dispute about the levy of duty and subsequently on settlement of dispute by way of debit note incidence was born by person who paid the duty and it was held that in such cases there is no unjust enrichment and the incidence amount of duty so paid has not been passed on to any other person. Ratio of the said judgments squarely applicable in the present set of facts. I am therefore of the view that if it is established that the appellant was issued debit note by the principal towards the excise duty initially paid by the appellant and same has been accounted for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
