Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 988 - AT - Central ExcisePassing of Incidence of duty to the customer – Eligibility for refund – Unjust enrichment - Excess duty paid on bulk supply of explosives on prices determined provisionally – Duty decided in lower side – Held that:- The price was finalized at a lower side and the appellant initially cleared at a higher price with higher duty claimed refund - The higher duty collected from M/s Coal India Ltd., which was not supposed to be collected were computed and intimated in a document called credit note which is actually in the format of a Tax invoice and Coal India since paid higher duty, adjusted the amount against their future payments - Thus, they got back the money/amount paid in excess earlier - the excess duty amount initially paid by IOC has not been passed on to the buyer Coal India - Coal India has not also taken any Cenvat Credit on the duty paid on explosives and those were consumed by them - the document said to be credit notes is actually a tax invoice showing the amount excess collected to enable Coal India to adjust it with the future payments. Following CCEx., Nagpur Vs. Solar Capital Ltd. [2006 (2) TMI 522 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and Special Blasts Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Raipur [2005 (3) TMI 496 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] - bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted – It is not similar to the ‘Credit Notes’ referred in the Board’s Circular - it is a settlement of price either higher or lower side, in the course of finalization of provisional assessment, and not a price reduction subsequent to sale as envisaged in the Board’s Circular - Decided against Revenue.
|