TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department since the invoices would not show excise duty element at all. The ultimate customer In this case would not know what is the amount of refund to be claimed by him and whether there was any excise duty paid by his supplier at all. The assessee in this case after analyzing there was excess charge made by them indicated in their mail the price at which purchase order was issued actually related to the bigger boxes and there was a mistake on the part of the customer and the actual prices was only ₹ 5.20 per box + taxes and other levies. Apparently, both the sides agreed that there was a mistake in the purchase order and both sides had understood the cost of ₹ 5.20/- as the transaction value and there was mistake in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der w.e.f.01/10/2007 and the differential amount along with Central Excise duty and VAT were adjusted in the amount that was payable by the customer to the appellant. Since the customer was a regular customer and had a running account, the amount was adjusted in the running account itself. After reconciliation, after issuing the credit note and paying back the excess amount collected by way of adjustment in the running account, the appellant filed a refund claim with the Department. The refund claim has been rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2. Even though detailed arguments were presented on various issues, the only issue that is to be considered is whether unjust enrichment is attracted in this case or not. 3. The first g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the customers of the appellant. In this regard, I find that the submission of the Chartered Accountant that in the case of Addison Co. Vs. CCE, Madras [2001(129) ELT 44 (Mad.)], Hon ble High Court of Madras had considered this issue and had held that the Revenue cannot go beyond the first customer to decide whether there is unjust enrichment or not. If the duty liability has not been passed on to the immediate customer and if that is shown that would be sufficient, according to the Hon ble High Court of Madras. At this stage, the learned AR would submit that the Commissioner(Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI [1997(89) ELT 247 (SC)] to hold that what is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the two parties, the assessee in this case after analyzing there was excess charge made by them indicated in their mail the price at which purchase order was issued actually related to the bigger boxes and there was a mistake on the part of the customer and the actual prices was only ₹ 5.20 per box + taxes and other levies. Apparently, both the sides agreed that there was a mistake in the purchase order and both sides had understood the cost of ₹ 5.20/- as the transaction value and there was mistake in the documentation. Therefore, the Commissioners observation that the appellant has to show that in the costing of the product element of excise duty has not been taken into account also is not relevant in this case if bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
