9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant to establish that they have not collected the duty from the buyer. Appellant has furnished a certificate from the buyer to show that price in the supply order is without including the excise duty. The appellant has now produced Certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant along with relevant Financial Statement, to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer. However, these documents require verification as these were not presented before the authorities below. The matter requires to be remanded to the original authority, who shall consider the issue of refund afresh on the basis of the documents including the CA certificate and the audited financial statement produced by the appellant. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the unit price is Rs.37,94,000/- and the total price is Rs.2,65.58,000/- It was very clearly mentioned in the supply order that excise duty is Nil‟ as these items are exempted under Notification No. 6/2006-CE (Sl.No.54B and 54C) dated 01.03.2006. However, by mistake, appellant had raised the invoice by splitting the composite value of Rs. 37,94,000/- into assessable value and excise duty. Thus the excise duty was shown as Rs. 2,88,826/- and the price of the item were shown as Rs. 35,05,174/-. Subsequently, appellant on realising the mistake had filed a refund claim for Rs. 17,32,949/- which is excise duty paid on these invoices. The refund claim has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The learned Counsel submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Central Excise Act, 1944 and argued when the invoices are raised mentioning the duty element a presumption has to be drawn that the incidence of duty has been passed on the customers. The appellant has not been able to rebut this presumption. The appellants have raised the invoices fully knowing that the goods are exempted from central excise duty. The authorities below have correctly held that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer and therefore rejected the refund claim of the appellant. Moreover, appellant has furnished the Chartered Accountant certificate and audited financial statement only before the Tribunal and these documents were not presented before the authorities below. Therefore these documents cannot be accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
