2018 (4) TMI 472 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Refund claim – unjust enrichment – case of Revenue is that the ground of unjust enrichment having not been considered by the First Appellate Authority in it is correct prospective – Held that: – the First Appellate Authority has come to a correct conclusion as to satisfaction of unjust enrichment by the respondent herein – the Chartered Accountant has categorically stated that the respondent (assessee) has been carrying on an amount of ₹ 6,80,974/- in the balance sheet under the “excise duty receivable” – the First Appellate Authority was correct in holding that the respondent herein has satisfied the condition of there is no unjust enrichment – refund allowed – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – Appeal No. E/30052/2018 – A/30360/2018 – Dated:- 15-2-2018 – Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial) Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant. Shri M. Rajendran, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M. V
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
payment of duty on being pointed out by the departmental audit informing that re-packing of the damaged goods does not amount to manufacture and as such the credit availed in respect of such goods was irregular; apart from the payment made by the appellants during audit intervention, a show cause notice was issued proposing duty demand of ₹ 29,20,709/-; the notice was adjudicated by confirming the duty demand proposed in the notice by the Joint Commissioner Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad-I Commissionerate in OIO No. 21/2014 CE dated 13.10.2014; on an appeal filed by the appellants to this forum, my Learned Predecessor allowed the appeal in OIA No. HYD-EXCUSMD- AP2-0048-17-18-CE dated 11.09.2017, OIA No. HYD-CE-001- APP-047-15-16 CE dated 27.01.2016 while setting aside the order impugned therein. Consequently, the appellants filed the refund claim with the lower authority claiming the deposit made by them at the time of departmental intervention. A show cause n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the First Appellate Authority is in error in holding that provisions of Section 11B (2) of the Central Excise Act will not applicable in this case as the refund can be sanctioned in respect of duty and credit paid on input services. It is his submission that the said provision would apply, in the case in hand. It is his further submission the respondent in this case has not passed the hurdle of unjust enrichment even going by Chartered Accountant Certificate, which was produced as it did not indicate period for which the amount has been shown as receivable. It is his further submission the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., [2016 (336) ELT 423] which states that principles of unjust enrichment are applicable to every case of refund irrespective of reasons for claiming refund, will cover the issue in favour of Revenue. 7. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, I find that the Revenue in this case is challenging t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
it reversed during 2010 as evidenced by the documents submitted and also the applicable interest paid thereon. The debit entry made in their CENVAT account was not on account of utilization of the said credit for payment of duty but just a reduction in their credit balance made on being pointed out by the department. Such reversal occurred after the clearance of the impugned goods and thus established no linkage with any clearance of goods. This being the case, the debit entry made in the CENVAT Account of the appellants does not represent any duty, the question of passing on of incidence to any other person does not arise at all. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings, the First Appellate Authority has come to a correct conclusion as to satisfaction of unjust enrichment by the respondent herein. I perused the Chartered Accountant s Certificate and which was produced before the lower authorities, I find that the Chartered Accountant has categorically stated that the responde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =