9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods i.e. structural steel on payment of Central Excise duty to its customers M/s Mineral Management Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi, under the cover of Central Excise invoices. However, due to error in the SAP Package, instead of the agreed upon price of 82,000/- Per MT indicated in the purchase order, the invoices were generated showing the price of 2,61,097/-, on the basis of which, the Central Excise duty liability was discharged by the appellant. Upon detection of the mistake regarding the problem in the computer system and deposit of excess duty amount in the Government account, the appellant filed the application before the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njust enrichment. In appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Adjudication Order. Hence, the present appeal is before this Tribunal. 3. Mr. H V Ghirnikar, the Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that proper accounting entries have been passed by the appellant in their books of accounts, showing that the excess paid excise duty has not been passed on to the buyer of the goods and the incidence of such duty amount has been borne by the appellant itself, for which the doctrine of unjust enrichment will have no application. To substantiate his above stand, the Ld. Chartered Accountant explains the accounting entries passed by the appellant which are as under: a) At the time of raising invoice, buyer' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 304 (kar.). 5. Sh. R K Gupta, the Ld. DR appearing for the respondent, besides reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned order, further submits that the certificate dated 29.05.2013 issued by the Chartered Accountant does not have any evidentially value, which is evident from the fact that the period indicated in the said certificate is different from the period, involved in the present dispute. He further submits that the said certificate has referred to the ST-3 returns, which is relevant for the service tax purpose and not for the Central Excise. Thus, according to the Ld. DR since the Certificate have not been issued upon proper verification of the books of accounts, the same cannot be accepted for deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit note have no bearing on the initial passing of incidence of duty to the customers. On the basis of such findings, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that claim for refund is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. 8. I find that the Range Superintendent vide his letter dated 26.06.2012 has submitted the verification report, upon verification of the documents maintained by the appellant, wherein it has been specifically stated that the excess amount of Central Excise duty has been paid on account of error in the computer package; that the buyer of the goods had confirmed that no cenvat credit of such excess payment of excise duty has been taken. Upon proper verification of the books of accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearance of goods under invoice paying excess duty, is a standard accounting practice and the refund cannot be denied on the ground that the credit note has been issued subsequent to conclusion of the transaction. In this context, I rely on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sudhir Papers Ltd. (supra) and Bharat Box Factory Ltd. (supra) wherein, it has been held that subsequent issuance of credit note cannot disentitle the assessee for the refund of excess excise duty paid at the time of initial clearance of the goods. The above referred decisions cited by the Ld. DR are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the case of Blastech (India) Pvt. Ltd. the issue was with regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged. The other cases cited by the Ld. DR are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, because the facts such as; credit entries made and subsequent issuance of credit note by the appellant, read with the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant, proving the fact that the incidence of excess paid duty has not been passed on to the buyers, were not subject matter of dispute in those decided cases. 10. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that excess amount of central excise duty, for which the refund application has been filed by the appellant, is not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment and the appellant will be eligible for the refund of the same, since the incidence of such excess paid dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
