Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 990 - AT - Central ExciseBar of unjust enrichment - differential duty paid subsequent to the clearance by way of payment under TR-6 challans - Held that:- We find that the Tribunal in the series of judgements in the cases of Plas Pack Industries (2004 (2) TMI 125 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ), Silwester Textiles P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in (2003 (5) TMI 305 - CESTAT, MUMBAI), Industrial Cables (2001 (12) TMI 104 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI), Easter Industries Ltd. (1999 (8) TMI 915 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI ) and in the case of Southern Agrifune Indus. Ltd. (2004 (7) TMI 246 - CESTAT, CHENNAI ) has held that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted when the differential duty is paid subsequent to the clearance of the goods. Moreover, in the present case, there is no dispute that in respect of payment of differential duty under protest, whose refund is claimed, no supplementary invoices had been issued. Had such supplementary invoice been issued, a presumption could be made under Section 12 B of the Central Excise Act but in absence of such supplementary invoice, no presumption can be made. We have gone through para-91 of the Apex Court's judgement in the case of Mafatlal Industries (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) cited in the grounds of appeal and we are of the view that the observations of the Apex Court in that para are not applicable to the facts of this case at all. Commissioner's conclusion the differential duty had been paid subsequent to the clearance by way of payment under TR-6 challans, the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply. - Decided against revenue
|