Commissioner of Central Tax, Medchal – GST Versus M/s Saraca Laboratories Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (4) TMI 472 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 15-2-2018
Appeal No. E/30052/2018 – A/30360/2018
Central Excise
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. Ravindran.]
This appeal is filed by Revenue directed against Order-in-Appeal No. No. HYD-EXCUS-MD-AP2-0048-17-18 dated 11.09.2017.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding refund of an amount of Rs. 6,80,974/-. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the refund claim and the First Appellate Authority has allowed the same.
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are holders of CE Registration No. AACCS8240HXM001 for the manufacture of Bulk Drugs i.e., 'Ranitidine HCL' and Rani
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 notice dated 02.11.2016 was issued to the appellants proposing to reject the subject refund claim on the grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment in terms of Sec. 11B(2) of the CE Act, 1944. After due process of law, the notice was adjudicated in the impugned order wherein the refund claim was rejected on the grounds that the appellants failed to prove the bar of unjust enrichment with relevant documentary evidences and that the claim was hit by bar of limitation as the claim of 'under protest' was not recorded with the department at any point of time. The rejection of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
urther 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 the Order-in- Appeal only on the ground of unjust enrichment having not been considered by the First Appellate Authority in it is correct prospective, and the First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal only on limitation in favour of the respondent herein. I find that it is not so, in order to appreciate the findings of the First Appellate Authority on the ground of unjust enrichment, I reproduce the relevant portion from paragraph No. 5.2 which reads as under:
5.2 The lower authority vide para 7 of the impugned order rejected the Chartered Accountants' Certificate
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =