Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 624 - Central Excise
Refund of erroneously paid Central Excise duty - Erroneous calculation of Central Excise duty @ 10.30% instead of 12.36% which was discharged as excise duty in the month of March 2012 - Instead of paying differential duty, inadvertently the Appellant once again paid the entire amount of excise duty @ 12.36% - refund claimed denied on the presumption that the incidence of duty has been passed on by the Appellant to the buyer (Rail Wheel Factory) in terms of Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- It is found from the records that the Revenue has not controverted the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant. It is settled law that if the assessee has not received the amount from the buyers, it cannot be held, that the Appellant will be unjustly enriched.
The decision of the Tribunal in the case of MHATRE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELAPUR [2008 (5) TMI 179 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., PONDICHERRY VERSUS SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2006 (7) TMI 222 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] are very much on the point, where it was held that Revenue has not controverted the certificate of the purchaser and certificate of the Chartered Accountant. It is settled law that if the assessee has not received the amount from the suppliers, it cannot be held, that the appellant will be unjustly enriched.
Thus, it has to be held that the impugned order is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.