9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een shown as duty payment on account of galleries under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) have correctly determined the issue that the clause of unjust enrichment is not attracted in view of the facts and circumstances - there is no merit in the ground by Revenue and same do not have any merit. Refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 53519 of 2018 (SM) - Final Order No. 50631/2019 - Dated:- 27-2-2019 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Ms. Tamana Alam, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant. Shri Dhruv Tiwari, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER Per. Anil Choudhary :- Revenue file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 523, Jaipur Syntex Ltd. vs. CCE 2002 (143) E.L.T. 605 etc. CA vide certificate dated 31/10/2017, has certified that the appellant had paid ₹ 23,04,000/- on account of Excise duty on Gallery portion during the period July, 1999 to February, 2000 to the Government account. Further certified that on the basis of records and books of account, the appellant has not recovered any amount towards above said payment of excise duty paid on account of Gallery portion from any customer in any manner as the said duty is bear by them and the same is being reflected in their balance sheet as receivable account. I find that the certificate issued by the CA clearly shows that the appellant had deposited Central Excise duty and the incidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from 1999-2000 to 2012-2013 under sub-head as balance with Central Excise Authority/Central excise duty under protest PLA is there, still the amount of ₹ 22,40,771/- is invariably forming the part of amount shown in sub-group. Therefore, it is clear that the amount of ₹ 22.40 lacs has not been passed on/ collected through buyers. Hence I observe that the appellant has paid the Central Excise duty and the same was not charged from the customers/ not passed on to the customers hence the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the matter. 9. In view of above, I allow the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, as discussed above . 4. Upon consideration the riv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
