Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 870 - AT - Central ExciseScope of the order pursuant to remand back of the matter - Refund of Excess Duty paid - goods cleared to their depots on stock transfer basis under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - corroborative evidence or not - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the appellant has paid duty at a higher value while clearing the goods from the factory to the depots and the said goods were sold to the customers at a lower price and the original authorities after verification of all the documents have found that the appellant entitled to refund of the excess duty paid by them but the Ld. Commissioner vide the impugned order has accepted the appeal of the department by holding that the appellant has failed to prove that the higher duty paid by them has not been recovered from their buyer. The identical issue was examined by the Tribunal in the case of NAHAR SPG. & WVG. MILLS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL [2009 (2) TMI 677 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] wherein after considering the submissions of the department that the appellant failed to co-relate the goods cleared from the factory and removal from the depot and therefore, failed to establish that the question of duty has not been passed to any other person - once it is established that the goods were sold from the depot to the customers at a lower price as is the case in the present case then it is clear that the higher duty has not been collected by the appellant and hence there is no unjust enrichment. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the remand order passed by the Tribunal. In remand order, the Ld. Commissioner was only to consider the issue of unjust enrichment whereas the Ld. Commissioner has gone beyond the remand order to hold that Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 has not been followed. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.
|