Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Allahabad Versus UAL Uttar Pradesh

2016 (2) TMI 588 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Refund claim - Commissioner (A) has allowed the refund claim holding that respondent has passed the bar of unjust enrichment - Held that:- On passing of duty of incidence is to be seen in a way that whether the buyer has claimed the credit of duty paid by the respondent or not. Admittedly the buyer of the respondent are not registered with Central Excise Department, therefore, claiming the credit of duty paid by the respondent does not arise. In these circumstances, the credit note issued by the .....

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 by them at the time of provisional clearance of the goods. - Decided in favour of assessee - E/51654/2014-EX(SM) - Final Order No. A/52017/2015-EX(SM) - Dated:- 24-6-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (J) Shri G.R. Singh, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Satyaprem Majumder, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein ld. Commissioner (A) has allowed the refund claim holding that respondent has passed the bar of unjust enrichment. 2. The facts o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lly, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the premise that respondent has failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment and on appeal, the ld. Commissioner (A) after examining the issue, allowed the refund claim. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before me. 3. The ld. AR submits that in this case respondent has failed to prove that the ultimate consumer has not been burdened with the duty element at the time of clearance of the goods. This fact has not been answered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

finalized and as per the assessment order respondent were entitled to claim refund of excess at the time of provisional clearance of the goods. He further submits that the buyers to whom they have cleared the goods are not registered with Central Excise Department. Therefore, claiming the Cenvat credit on the strength of invoices issued at the time of clearance does not arise. In these circumstances, credit notes issued to the buyers/dealers is evidence that the buyer is not burdened with the d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T. 344 (A.P.) in the case of Mahavir Cylinders v. CCE, Ghaziabad - 2012 (284) E.L.T. 54 (Tri.-Del.). Further in the case of Sudhir Papers Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 304 (Kar.), in the case of AK Spintex Ltd. v. UOI - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 41 (Raj.) and in the case of Vardhaman Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 381 (P&H). 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 6. In this case the admitted facts are as under : The respondent has cleared good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version