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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Versus Crystal Granite & Marble (P) Ltd.

2016 (1) TMI 385 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Benefit of Notification No.6/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003 - 100% EOU - DTA Clearances - Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- Respondent filed refund claim with the lower authorities for sanctioning the refund of the amount which was paid during the proceedings. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the documents which were furnished are not sufficient and they have not passed on the incidence of duty to any other person. On appeal, the first 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 find that as regards the discharge of CVD, we held that CVD has been correctly discharged @ ₹ 30/- per Sq. Mtr. Hence, on this point, there cannot be any dispute.

First appellate authority has categorically recorded that invoices raised by the respondent indicate only discharge of Central Excise duty as per Notification No.6/2003-CE and the amount deposited were subsequent to the clearances made by them. On perusal of the records, we find it so. We perused the invoices and als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

twal, Advocate ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran 1. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.PII/BKS/259/2005 dated 30/05/2005 & PII/BKS/344/2005 dated 13/09/2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. Since both the appeals are interconnected, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appeal No.E/3284/05 is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order on the ground that the first appellate aut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and cleared the same to DTA as per the provisions and discharged CVD @ ₹ 30/- per Sq. Mtr., which was the effective rate under Notification No.6/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003 while it is the case of the Revenue that being an EOU the respondent is required to discharge the CVD at tariff rate, i.e. 16% advalorem. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated by show-cause notice by relying upon the various case laws. Aggrieved by such an order the Revenue preferred an appeal to th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hrough the case records and the various submissions made by the appellants. The issue in the present appeal is whether the refund claim is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment or not. In the instant case department contended that duty paid can very well be recovered subsequently by issuing supplementary invoices and/or debit notes and hence took the stand that unjust enrichment is applicable even if the duty is not shown on th invoices at the time of clearance. In this regard, I find that Tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts contention that appellant might have issued subsequent invoices or debit notes and hence the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable cannot be a ground without any evidence. Further I find that the appellants have produced a CA certificate stating that they have not recovered/claimed the amount of ₹ 36,00.934/- from the customers. The appellants have also produced letters from their customers who have certified that they have paid the CVD amount calculated @ ₹ 30 per Sq. meter and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty has not been passed on to the customers. Also the adjudicating authority has mentioned about the accounting treatment given to duty paid as expenditure and not as receivable and observed that hence there is chance of it being passed on indirectly. In this regard, I find that Tribunal in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. CCE (2005 (67) RLT 291) has held that principles of unjust enrichment is not applicable since the amount was kept in account as sale expenses and was deducted out of profit. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

judgement of the Gujarat High Court and the Delhi High Court, hence nothing survives in this matter, the same has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Hyderabad Vs. Shanta Biotechnics Ltd. - 2010 (259) ELT 447 (Tri-Bang). 6. In view of the factual findings as recorded by both the lower authorities and the authoritative to judicial pronouncements, we find that the impugned order in this appeal is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. As regards the Appeal No.E/3950 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inal and held that the appellant has produced various documents before him and that he has not passed on the incidence of duty to their clients. Holding so he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent with direction to the lower authorities to refund the amount to the respondent. The Revenues case is that the appellant had not passed the hurdle of unjust enrichment and has not provided any documents as also that the CVD payable is as per tariff rate. We find that as regards the discharge of CV .....

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