9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ails as well as the certification by the Chartered Accountant and a clear mention about the amount receivable in the balance sheet – held that there no doubt that the differential excise duty has not been passed on to the buyers or to the Government of India by the Respondents and hence, grant of refund to them would not result in unjust enrichment. Refund is allowed. - C/205/2008 - A-783/KOL/2008 - Dated:- 8-8-2008 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) Shri S.B. Shinde, JDR, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Mohanty, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)].- Heard both sides. 2. The impugned Order has been passed by the lower Appellate Authority obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance on decisions of Honourable Supreme Court as they would come to his rescue only if he had found as to how the evidences presented fail to establish that incidence of excess duty paid has not been passed. In view of above findings I set the impugned order aside. Since the adjudicator is not inclined even to examine the evidence and record findings in logical manner, I accept the claim of the appellants as they remain uncontested." 3. The Department has come in appeal against the impugned Order on the ground that the Respondents have not submitted adequate records to prove that the impugned amount has not been included in the cost of inputs and that the same has not been recovered from the buyers as selling price or from the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine the evidence and record findings in logical manner, he accepted the claim of the Appellants. Such observation while allowing the Appeal in this manner does nothing except lowering the dignity of the tax administration. 6. In fact, we find from his previous Remand Order dated 15-10-07 that all the documents including the balance sheet, the notification issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, the cost sheet etc. were produced by the Respondents before him. He had also come to the conclusion therein that no unjust enrichment would result if the refund amount was paid to the respondents and then he proceeded to remand the case for passing a speaking order. As such, we find that though the lower Appellate Authority is blaming the Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the retention price are both below their cost price excluding the excess duty. In view of these undisputed details as well as the certification by the Chartered Accountant and a clear mention about the amount receivable in the balance sheet, we have no doubt in our mind that the differential excise duty has not been passed on to the buyers or to the Government of India by the Respondents and hence, grant of refund to them would not result in unjust enrichment. As such, the Appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the Original Authority is directed to withdraw the impugned amount from the Consumer Welfare Fund and pay the same to the Respondents. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
