TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial duty was made after clearance of the goods and amount was paid on insistence by the Preventive Officers on 8.11.2006. Subsequently, on adjudication, the said demand has been set aside by the adjudicating authority. On a specific query from the bench, learned Counsel submits that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against such dropping of the demand by the adjudicating authority. If that be so, the denial of refund of an amount paid subsequent to clearance of the goods, seems to be inappropriate on the face of the judgment by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rockett Engg. Corporation Ltd. (2014 (3) TMI 754 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ), wherein it has been held that when duty is paid after clearance of goods, on insistence of anti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss account of 2006-07. The appeal filed before the first appellate authority also met with the same fate. It is seen from the records that the appellant had filed certificate from Chartered Accountant, who had audited the records, to the effect that in this case incidence of duty is not passed on. The certificate was disputed by both the lower authorities on the ground that the C.A. certificate has not clearly spelt out that how the view has been arrived by him. 4. The learned Counsel draws attention to the facts of the case and submits that the issue is no more res integra as Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune vs. Rocket Engg. Corporation Ltd. - 2014 (306) ELT 33 (BOM) and Hon'ble H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It is his submission that duty payment which is shown as expenditure, can be presumed that it has been passed on directly or indirectly. It is his further submission that the appellant though have filed revised balance-sheet with the Income Tax Department showing the amount as receivable in year 2008-09, which is not a case here. On specific query from the Bench as to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana, he submits that there is nothing to submit. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the appeal can be disposed of only on the point whether the appellant had discharged the duty liability subsequent to clearance of their products. It is very muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue in holding that the bar of unjust enrichment will not apply in the present case, when payment of duty is made subsequent to clearance of goods. (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT is justified in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s. Sahakari Khand Udyog Ltd. 2005 (181) ELT 328 (SC) ; (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT is justified in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s. Allied Photographics India Ltd. 2004 (166) ELT 3(SC) . 3. The issue arising in these appeals is whether the refund of duty deposite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought without having passed on the burden to others. 8. The aforesaid decisions are distinguishable, as in this case there are concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner(Appeals) the Tribunal that that the respondent assessee has paid the Central Excise Duty of ₹ 54,339/and ₹ 39,483/, after clearance of the excisable goods. Moreover, this payment of duty was on insistence of Anti Evasion Branch of the Central Excise Department. Thus, it was held that the burden of duty was not passed on to its customers. 9. In view of the above concurrent findings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly appeals are summarily dismissed. No order as to cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for the months of September, 1997 to February, 1998. The annual production capacity of the respondents unit was yet to be determined finally. The Assistant Commissioner directed the respondents herein on 16-3-98 to deposit ₹ 10,87,824/-more by 25-3-98 as their duty liability for the material period was ₹ 24,87,592/-. The respondents herein deposited a sum of ₹ 10,87,592/- under protest on 25-3-98 and for the month of March 1998 they deposited ₹ 1,36,670/- on 31-3-98. The Commissioner on 3-3-99 finally determined annual production capacity of the furnace. According to the final capacity the duty amount came to ₹ 58,49,290/- whereas the respondents herein had deposited ₹ 70,48,064/- in the material perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
