9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . They supplied goods to BHEL, Haridwar and issued invoice including the excise duty to the tune of Rs. 2,53,103/-. It was pointed out by BHEL that the goods supplied were exempted from duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and that therefore BHEL is not paying the excise duty as raised in the invoice. The appellant had already debited the entry for Rs. 2,53,103 being the excise duty on the goods supplied. On being pointed out by BHEL and on receiving letter dated 05.07.2013 issued by BHEL that they are not paying the excise duty of Rs. 2,53,103/- wrongly charged on them, the appellants made corresponding credit entry in their accounts on 31.07.2013. Thus, it is the case of appellant, that they did not collect the excise d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unjust enrichment and that the authorities below have rightly credited the sanctioned refund to Consumer Welfare Fund. The Ld. AR relied upon the recent decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in CCE, Madras Vs M/s Addison & Company Ltd., reported in [2016 (339) ELT 177 (S.C.)] 5. I have heard both sides. The issue for consideration is whether the refund claim is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment. In para 3 of the Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority has discussed that the amount of excise duty of Rs. 2,53,103/- which is the subject matter of refund claim was debited in the account on 28.05.2013 as sales excise duty and shown as expenditure. Later when the mistake was noticed, the same was shown as refund receivable by adjustin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act of M/s BHEL, Haridwar account for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2013 reflecting the entries made on 28.05.2013 and 31.07.2013. 7. BHEL has issued a letter dated 24.06.2013 which was received by the appellant on 05.07.2013. In this letter it is seen stated that BHEL has not paid an amount of Rs. 2,53,103/- which was raised in the invoice as excise duty. It is pertinent to mention that the debit entry was made on 28.05.2013 for collection of excise duty which was raised by appellant in the invoice. The letter has been issued or signed by BHEL on 24.06.2013 stating that BHEL is not paying the excise duty as raised in the invoice. It is crystal clear that BHEL has not paid the excise duty and that the same is borne by appellant. Though th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
