9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PRODUCTS LTD. [ 2018 (3) TMI 345 - CESTAT HYDERABAD ] where it was held that the amount paid by respondent being an amount and does not amount to duty, the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, would not get attracted to such refund claims, and the bar of unjust enrichment will not apply, as the said provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, will apply to refund is a duty. The rejection of refund on the ground of time bar cannot sustain - The Commissioner (Appals) has remanded to look into the issue of unjust enrichment. The appellant has to establish that the duty burden has not been passed on to another in the remand proceedings ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal allowed in part and part matter on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e process of law, the original authority denied the entire refund. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund of ₹ 18,59,400/- and disallowed the amount of ₹ 20,64,215/- on the ground of being time barred. Aggrieved by such rejection of the refund, appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Consultant Shri P.C. Anand appeared and argued the matter. He adverted to para 7.4 of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that there is a clear finding by the lower authority that there is no manufacturing activity carried out by the appellant on the goods imported by them and supplied to Navy; that for this reason, the appellant is not required to reverse the credit pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out by the appellant on the goods supplied to navy. He has also held that the appellants have erroneously reversed the credit under Rule 6 (3) in respect of goods supplied to Navy. However, after examining the claim, part of the refund claim has been rejected on the ground of limitation. Refund pertaining to two invoices dated 03.07.2011 and 29.02.2012 have been held by the Commissioner (Appeals) to be time barred. The refund claim is filed on10.07.2014. After computing from the date on which the clearances were made (the date on which the credit was reversed), these amounts have been held to be time barred. The question then arises whether the wrong reversal of amount in the cenvat credit account by the appellant would amount to payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vely. Since the said amount of 6% is not considered as Excise duty, the question of computation and payment of Education Cess and Secondary Education Cess does not arise. Therefore, I hold that these Education Cesses are not liable to be paid on amounts paid under Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. 9. In my considered view, the undisputed fact is the amount paid by respondent being an amount and does not amount to duty, the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, would not get attracted to such refund claims, and the bar of unjust enrichment will not apply, as the said provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, will apply to refund is a duty. I find the First Appellate Authority was correct in coming to such a conclusion in parag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
