Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (5) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved: Refund claims rejection based on time bar and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim rejected on account of time bar
The appeal was filed against the rejection of two refund claims by the assessee. The first claim was rejected due to being filed beyond the one-year period, resulting in it being hit by time bar. The appellant argued that the claim should be considered provisional due to a price variation clause in the agreement with the buyer. However, the agreement was not found in the records. The tribunal remanded the matter to the Original authority to examine the agreement and determine if the assessments should be deemed provisional based on the clause.

Issue 2: Refund claim rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment
The second claim was rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment, although the amount was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant contended that there was no unjust enrichment as they received the reduced price only after the goods were received and the effectiveness was ascertained. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that there was no opportunity to pass on the higher duty to the buyers. As a result, the appeal was allowed concerning the second claim, and it was determined that there was no unjust enrichment in this case.

The tribunal directed the Original authority to reconsider the first claim, requiring the production of the agreement with the buyer and a thorough examination of the case in light of the case laws submitted by the appellant. The de novo order was to be passed within three months from the date of the tribunal's order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates