New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 274 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2015 (10) TMI 274 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Payment of excess duty - Appellant applied price escalation from 01.01.2009 instead of 01.07.2009, therefore, the entire amount of ₹ 3,28,136/-paid in the supplementary invoices, was in excess - Held that:- Authorities below had not recorded a categorical finding about the eligibility of refund and also applicability of unjust enrichment. Besides, I find that the documents now produced by the ld.Consult .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-3-2015 - D M Misra, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri D Jha, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri A Roy, Supdt. (AR) ORDER Per: D M Misra: This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.107/JSR/2012 dated 26.07.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ranchi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Heading 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant had raised a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lation from 01.01.2009 instead of 01.07.2009, therefore, the entire amount of ₹ 3,28,136/-paid in the supplementary invoices, was in excess and accordingly, refundable to them. Consequently, they have filed refund claim with the Department on 19th April, 2010 along with enclosures. A show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant on 30.06.2006 proposing rejection of refund being improper and also on account of unjust enrichment. The ld.Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on bot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paid by M/s Tata Motors Ltd., which includes refund claim amounting to ₹ 3,28,136/-. He submits that even though initially M/s Tata Motors, had availed cenvat credit against the said supplementary invoice No.22473 dated 07.01.2010, but later reversed the cenvat credit by debiting their RG-23A Part II Account vide Entry No.731 dated 11.03.2010. In support, he has placed a copy of the letter bearing No.FIN/X/48/362 dated February 01, 2013, issued by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. 3. The ld. A. R. appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e buyer, cannot suffice the requirement of evidences to show that the burden of duty has not been passed on to the customer. In support, he has referred to the judgement of this Tribunal in the case of GAIL India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Gwalior : 2011 (264) E. L. T. 393 (Tri.-Del.). 4. In his rejoinder, the ld. Consultant for the Appellant, has referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, BBSR II Vs. Golf Oil Corporation reported in 2007 (219) ELT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version