Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 792 - CESTAT MUMBAIRejection of refund claim - payment of excess duty on the clearance of copper rod to their sister unit as per CAS-4 - respondent has not followed the provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Incorrect CA certificates - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- The fact that appellants have not followed the provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is irrelevant to the instant case and also cannot be the ground for rejection of refund claim. Sale made to independent buyers and the assessment method adopted thereto is totally irrelevant and out of context in so for as the present refund claims are concerned when CAS 4 certificates filed for the refund period have not been disputed by the department. On one hand the department is accepting CAS 4 certificates for inter unit transfer clearances and on the other hand rejecting the refund claims lodged on the basis of the very same CAS 4 certificates which have been accepted. Rejection of the refund claim does not appear to be legally correct. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and lower authority directed to re-examine the entire issue and pass fresh orders, after observing principles of natural justice. The appellant shall also satisfy the respondent that there is no unjust enrichment. As held by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in C.C. vs. B.P.L. Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. Refund unjust enrichment, proof of - No evidence other than a Chartered Accountant certificate produced Certificate merely a piece of evidence acknowledging certain facts and in itself not sufficient to show that duty in relation to refund not passed on to another person. If it was otherwise, then the certificate would prevail over consideration of issues before authorities, a situation which was not contemplated under statue. Production of documents or other evidence was necessary for this purpose. As the refund claims are subject to payment of interest, in this case the refund claims pertains to the period from July 2008 to March 2011 and the matter in litigation for such a long period therefore, the direction of this Tribunal to decide the refund claim within 30 days are necessarily to be followed. - Decided against Revenue.
|