Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shreyas Intermediates Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II

2015 (11) TMI 208 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Denial of refund claim - Section 11B - unjust enrichment - held that:- from the original order that appellant have submitted C.A. Certificate as well as their balance sheet. The original authority has verified the said documents and came to the conclusion that the amount of refund has been shown as receivable under the head of “loans and advances”, the same has been certified by the Chartered Accountant. From the said records, I do not find any reason that what else is required to establish that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d anything as regard amount shown receivable under the head of loan and advances which is conclusive evidence of proof of not passing of incidence of duty. Therefore the Commissioner (Appeals) has made serious error in not considering the C.A. certificate as well as balance sheet in proper perspective. Therefore impugned order suffers with serious infirmity - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/1571, 1572/11-MUM - Final Order Nos. A/2747-2748/2015-WZB/SMB .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an amount of ₹ 1,29,676/- and ₹ 77,788/- with the Jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, under Section 11B. The adjudicating Authority allowed the refund claim considering facts that there is excess payment of duty and also verified aspect of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order held that the appellant has not discharged their burden of principle of unjust enrichment and accordingl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eivable account under the head loan and advances in the assets side of the Balance Sheet and considering this fact the original authority has observed that incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other persons. He submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenues appeal only on the ground that C.A. Certificate submitted by the appellant is not proper as he contended that the basis of certificate is not understood. It is his submission that the Ld. Commissioner has no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has observed that appellant during the process of refund the appellant have submitted documents such as credit note etc. to establish that the duty so charged in the invoices has not been collected from buyer therefore he could not prove that incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other person. He submits that since at the time of the clearing of the goods appellant have charged excise duty in the invoices the incidence of duty shown in the invoices deemed to have been passed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fund has been shown as receivable under the head of loans and advances , the same has been certified by the Chartered Accountant. From the said records, I do not find any reason that what else is required to establish that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person. As regard the unjust enrichment the original authority has given findings which is extracted below: As regards point No. (b), I find that the claimant has submitted a copy of their statement of accounts for the rele .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4.10.2010 from the Chartered Accountants certifying that the said amount of refund has been shown under the schedule LOANS & ADVANCES and the said amount is not recovered by the company from any party. Relying on the same, I find that the clause of unjust enrichment cannot be made applicable. Further I rely on the case law CC, Cochin Vs. Rajesh Chemicals, 2006 (196) ELT 064 (T) Unjust enrichment Excess payment of duty due to arithmetical error cannot be considered as duty Unjust enrichment p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unjust enrichment. The above Chartered Accountants certificates merely say that their assessee have provided for these two refund claims in their financial statements i.e. they have shown these amounts as recoverable from the department. However, it is not clearly understood on what basis they have certified that the excess duty paid has not been recovered from their parties. At the end of the certificates, they have also cautioned that these certificates are also given on the basis of explanat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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