TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (T) Shri P.C. Anand, Consultant, for the appellant. Dr. Nitish Birdi, SDR, for the respondent. [Order P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)] - The Superintending Engineer, TNEB, Nagapattinam, has filed this appeal. In the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the order of the original authority. Original Authority had sanctioned refund of Rs. 43,50,765/- and credited the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund. He had also rejected the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 17,53,427/-. 2. The facts of the case are that during the period 1989 to 1994, the RCC pole yards located in Nagapattinam circle of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB, Electricity Board, Board), got manufactured RCC poles through jobworkers (cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in 2003 (155) ELT 523 (Tri.), the Tribunal observed that the revenue had not produced any material to rebut the findings of the Commissioner based on the balance sheet, Chartered Accountant's certificate and constant prices of the car brought on record by the respondent. Relying on another decision of the Tribunal in Hero Honda Ltd. case wherein the appellant had shown the disputed refund amounts as receivable from the Government in the balance sheet and annual report as well as the Chartered Accountant's certificate to the effect that the appellants had not passed on the incidence of deposit to the customers, the Tribunal had upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the appellants the recoveries were less than the cost of generation and transmission. The Board was run on State Government grants. In a similar case of TNEB, vide Final Order reported in 2004 (164) ELT 84 (T), it was decided that unjust enrichment did not apply. 6. As regards the denial of refund to the extent of Rs.17,53,427/-, the appellant prayed that photocopies of TR6 challans may be ordered to be accepted in proof of payment of the amount claimed as refund. In Jay Engineers Works Ltd. Vs. CCE Hyderabad [2003 (158) ELT 718], it was decided that refund could not be refused for non supply of original TR6 challans if otherwise eligible and payment could be verified from other documents filed with the department. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants' own case, we allow the appeals with consequential reliefs." Revenue had not challenged this decision. In view of the above ratio the impugned claim did not involve unjust enrichment. Ld SDR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 8. We have carefully considered the records of the case and submissions by both sides. From the records furnished by the appellants, we find that the balance sheets for the year ending 31.3.2006 for Nagapattinam circle show a total current assets of Rs. 200,97,12,269/-.Under Schedule 26, "Total current assets", break up of current assets was given. Sundry receivables are shown to account for Rs.109,45,660/-. Breakup of sundry receivables was given in Schedule 26 (e). Item 7, "Deposits", o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their accounts, we hold that the impugned refund claim does not suffer from the vice of unjust enrichment. We also find that in Superintending Engineer, TNEB Vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 2004 (164) ELT 84 (Tri.-Chen.), this Bench had held that unjust enrichment did not apply to refund of excess duty paid on naptha as the assessee had shown that the power tariff fixed much earlier had remained constant, the appellants had incurred huge losses and the refund amount claimed had been shown as sundry receivables in their balance sheets. This decision lends support to our finding as regards unjust enrichment in grant of the impugned refund claim. 9.1. We have considered the ratio of TNEB, Superintending Engineer Vs. CCE Trichy (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
