TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue to prove recovery of extra duty collected from the customers by producing positive evidence. As the Revenue failed to advance any evidence to rebut the Chartered Accountant certificate, the allegation of unjust enrichment cannot be upheld. Similarly in the case of Deepak Internationa Vs. CC&ST, Kanpur [2014 (11) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it was observed that Chartered Accountant certificate certifying extra duty paid not recovered from buyers to be given due evidentiary value especially when the said extra duty reflected in balance sheet as loan and advances recoverable from the Revenue. The appellants have taken a categorical stand in the present proceedings that the adjudicating authority examined the balance sheet of the year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt before the CESTAT, the said orders of the authorities below were set aside with consequential relief admissible to the appellant in accordance with law. Accordingly they filed a refund claim of ₹ 12,78,786/- with the original adjudicating authority. The same stands rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the refund was upheld by Commissioner(Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 3. The sole question required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the refund claim filed by the assessee in terms of the Tribunals order would be hit by the principles of unjust enrichment or not. The appellant during the course of adjudication submitted Chartered Accountant certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a responsible person, controlled by Institute of Chartered Accountant of India, which is a statutory body, could not have given a wrong certificate. There is no reason as to why the authorities below should reject the same without any reason. They have further contended that they have produced all the sale invoices with quantity and value along with memos / local bills. Merely because the buyers addresses were not given, it will not make the said invoices as bad in law so as to conclude against them. 5. The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly the appellants have given a Chartered Accountant certificate indicating that duty element has not been received by them from their buyers. As per the majority order of the Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nals decision in the case of CCE, Surat-II Vs. Binkaia Synthetics Ltd. [2013(294) ELT 156 (Tri. Ahmd.)]. As such, we are of the view that the Chartered Accountant certificate is a good evidence to show that the disputed duty amounts have not been collected from the customers and the same cannot be sidelined lightly without production of any other evidence to show that the said certificate is a wrong certificate. 6. Apart from the above, we also note that the appellants have produced sales invoices indicating that the sales were made against cash and no excess duty was recovered by them. The adjudicating authority has not taken into consideration the said invoices merely on the sole ground that the buyers address is not given. Admittedl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
