9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accounting entries available in the Annual Accounts for the year 2015-16 without giving any valid finding as to why they are not acceptable - The Appellant has submitted enough evidence to substantiate their claim of excess payment of duty. The documents submitted by the Appellant along with the Chartered Accountant submitted by them establishes that there was an excess payment of duty by the Appellant during the months of November 2015 and December 2015. Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has not produced any documents regarding crossing of the bar of unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the matter is required to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for the purpose of verification of the documents on the eligibility of refund from the unjust enrichment angle. Conclusion - The documents submitted by the Appellant establish that there was an excess payment of duty by the Appellant during the months of November 2015 and December 2015 and the Appellant is eligible for the refund, subject to verification of unjust enrichment . The impugned order is set aside and the issue is remanded back to the adjudicating authority only for the limited purpose of ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2015, the figures provided by some area offices were an estimated one because billing was not complete at that time. Accordingly, they have filed the refund for the excess payment of duty paid. The Appellant contends that the Ld. AC has grossly erred in observing that actual verification of duty liability for the period November 2015 and December 2015 was not possible on the basis of bill wise details submitted. The Appellant states that they had submitted the details of errors in ER-1 returns filled and details of correct figures that should have been considered while verifying the correctness of total duty actually payable and refund claimed, vide their letter dated 18.02.2016 and have also submitted the attested copies of invoices issued in relation to clearances made during the period in dispute vide letter dated 03.12.2016; these evidences submitted by them vide letter dated 18.02.2016 clearly support the correct duty payable by them for the period under dispute. On perusal of the Statements of excise duty actually payable, as submitted by them vide their letter dated 18.02.2016, with the copy of invoices as submitted vide letter dated 03.12.2016, the Appellant submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ascertain whether there is an excess payment or not. 6.4. The Appellant submits that the lower authorities have travelled beyond the allegations as made in the impugned Show Cause Notice inasmuch as the fact of the case that the CENVAT Credit used by the Appellant to pay the excise duty during the period in dispute was never disputed in the impugned Show Cause Notice. The Appellant submits that they have used their legitimate credit available in their CENVAT account. Hence, the Appellant submits that the orders passed by the lower authorities have traversed beyond the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice and hence they are not sustainable. 6.5. The Appellant further submits that vide their letter dated 18.02.2016, they have submitted the correct figures that should have been treated as their liability of excise duty during the period November 2015 and December 2015 in the format of ER-1 return; the provisions of Central Excise Rules were amended vide notification no. 8/2016- C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2016 to provide for revision of ER-1 filed by an assessee and the said provisions were brought into effect w.e.f. 17.08.2016 vide notification no. 42/2016-C.E. (N.T.) dated 11.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have simply brushed aside the accounting entries available in the Annual Accounts for the year 2015-16 without giving any valid finding as to why they are not acceptable. The ld. adjudicating authority has made the observation that the said entries were made just for accounting purpose without ascertaining proper duty liability required to be paid by them. I find that the said observation shows complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the Appellant is a PSU and the accounts are duly audited and the bona fide of the entries made therein cannot be doubted. Moreover, the Appellant has also submitted a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing excess payment of duty the correctness of which has nowhere been disputed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner. Thus, I find that the Appellant has submitted enough evidence to substantiate their claim of excess payment of duty. 9.2. I find that the Appellant had submitted the details of errors in ER-1 returns filled and details of correct figures that should have been considered while verifying the correctness of total duty actually payable and refund claimed vide their letter dated 18.02.2016. They have also submitted the attested copies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
