Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (10) TMI 127 - CESTAT, NEW DELHIValidity Of order-in-original - Refund of establishment charges which is paid by them is not a duty - Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The appellants also did not produce any balance sheet for the relevant years to show that these amount claimed as refund were in dispute with the Government. Any amount paid by the appellants or any company, is in the form of expenses, and is generally accounted as an expense in their Profit & Loss Account. Costing of the products of the company takes into consideration all the expenses charged to expense account in Profit & Loss Account and are appropriated as overhead. The appellants are also unable to produce any Chartered Accountant's Certificate or a Cost Accountant's Certificate to the contrary. Though their products were chargeable to specific rate of duty, that does not mean that the price of their product could not have included this amount. On the contrary, the sale price could have been determined by them considering these expenses. In respect of the argument that these establishment charges were paid for the export of the goods, hence cannot be charged from any customer to whom the goods have been exported, I feel that it is a question of expenses which is debited to the Profit & Loss Account and appropriated to the sales price of the product. They may not have collected this amount from the customers, but definitely would have loaded on to the value of the goods without quoting specifically. Since the appellants were unable to produce any documentary evidence, in any form, that these expenses were not recovered from their customers, I am unable to agree with the appellants. Hence the appeal is rejected and the adjudication order is upheld.
|