Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 944 - CESTAT MUMBAIDenial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- In the order dated 31-8-2010 while sanctioning the refund, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has clearly recorded that the documents governing the transactions for the period January to March, 2009 had been verified by the jurisdictional Range Officer, who had returned the refund claim with the remarks that the appellant had paid excess duty to the extent of ₹ 30,90,857/-. Further, vide letter dated 13-8-2010, the jurisdictional Range Officer has also reported that unjust enrichment clause is not involved, inasmuch as the appellant has borne the incidence of duty and the said duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person. In view of the verification done by the jurisdictional Range Officer, it is not understandable how the Revenue can take a plea that the appellant has not crossed the bar of unjust enrichment. There is no evidence adduced or forthcoming from the Revenue showing that the appellant has passed on the incidence of duty to their buyers. In fact all the invoices for the transaction issued from factory as also from the depot were verified by the Range Officer, who after verification has reported that the appellant has borne the incidence of duty and has not passed on the incidence to any other person. In view of this clear finding recorded by the jurisdictional Ranger Officer, the appellant was rightly entitled for the benefit of refund. - Decided in favour of assesse.
|