9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He had also rejected the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 17,53,427/-. 2. The facts of the case are that during the period 1989 to 1994, the RCC pole yards located in Nagapattinam circle of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB, Electricity Board, Board), got manufactured RCC poles through jobworkers (contractors). During the material period, the TNEB paid the excise duty due on the poles cast in these yards and released for consumption by the TNEB. Following the decision of the Tribunal that the Electricity Board was not the manufacturer of the RCC poles, the Superintending Engineer, TNEB, Nagapatnam, claimed refund of duty to the tune of Rs.61,04,192/- from the department. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceivable from the Government in the balance sheet and annual report as well as the Chartered Accountant's certificate to the effect that the appellants had not passed on the incidence of deposit to the customers, the Tribunal had upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appellant submits that its accounts showed the impugned amount as a recoverable with the excise authorities. In their balance sheet the impugned amounts were shown as deposits with excise authorities. It showed that the amount claimed as refund had not been passed on to the buyers. 4. The appellant cited the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Brindavan Tex Processors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CCE Bangalore reported i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered to be accepted in proof of payment of the amount claimed as refund. In Jay Engineers Works Ltd. Vs. CCE Hyderabad [2003 (158) ELT 718], it was decided that refund could not be refused for non supply of original TR6 challans if otherwise eligible and payment could be verified from other documents filed with the department. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants reiterated the grounds taken in the appeal. He submitted that the refund claim was consequential to the department accepting that TNEB is not the manufacturer of RCC/PSC poles and plates. He submitted that allowing an appeal involving similar facts in TNEB, Superintending Engineer Vs. CCE Trichy reported in 1999 (106) ELT 499 (Tri.), this Bench had made the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the year ending 31.3.2006 for Nagapattinam circle show a total current assets of Rs. 200,97,12,269/-.Under Schedule 26, "Total current assets", break up of current assets was given. Sundry receivables are shown to account for Rs.109,45,660/-. Breakup of sundry receivables was given in Schedule 26 (e). Item 7, "Deposits", of the schedule shows Rs. 63,93,515/-. In the monthly statement of accounts for the month of March 2006, Rs. 61,04,192/- was shown as deposit with excise authorities. This is the amount in dispute covered by the subject appeal. We find that the appellant has furnished a Chartered Accountant's certificate which, inter alia, certifies that the impugned amount of Rs.61,04,192/- paid to the excise authorities under p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants had incurred huge losses and the refund amount claimed had been shown as sundry receivables in their balance sheets. This decision lends support to our finding as regards unjust enrichment in grant of the impugned refund claim. 9.1. We have considered the ratio of TNEB, Superintending Engineer Vs. CCE Trichy (supra) cited by the Ld. Consultant. We do not find it advance the case of the appellant in view of the Apex Court's decision in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd Vs CCE [2005(181)E.L.T.328] that irrespective of applicability of Section 11B of the Act, the doctrine of unjust enrichment could be invoked to deny the refund to which a person is not otherwise entitled. 10. As regards the denial of ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
