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 →

M/s EPE Process Filters & Accumulators Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad

2016 (12) TMI 1514 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Refund claim - excise duty paid wrongly - unjust enrichment - Held that: - Under Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 when the invoice is raised including the excise duty a presumption is raised that the incidence of duty is passed on. But this presumption is a rebuttable one. When the invoice was mistakenly raised including the duty and when excise duty was not collected, there is no question of the burden of duty being passed on. - The appellant paid excise duty wrongly, and the same 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

ekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. Lalit Mohan Chandna, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. The above appeal is filed by appellant against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by original authority rejecting the refund claim. 2. The appellants filed refund claim for ₹ 2,53,103/- being excise duty wrongly paid by them. They supplied goods to BHEL, Haridwar and i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the excise duty of ₹ 2,53,103/- wrongly charged on them, the appellants made corresponding credit entry in their accounts on 31.07.2013. Thus, it is the case of appellant, that they did not collect the excise duty from BHEL, though raised in the invoice and entered in their account. There upon, the appellant filed a refund claim for refund of the excise duty mistakenly paid by them. The refund sanctioning authority sanctioned the refund of ₹ 2,53,103/- and ordered the same to be cre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efore the same has not been passed on to another. He submitted that the appellant has furnished a Chartered Accountant certificate in support of the contention that after coming to know that excise duty is not payable and also after receiving the letter from BHEL they have adjusted the said amount of ₹ 2,53,103/- and shown the amount as Refund Receivable . The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant having not collected the excise duty from the immediate purchaser/BHEL there is no questio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

77 (S.C.)] 5. I have heard both sides. The issue for consideration is whether the refund claim is hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment. In para 3 of the Order-in-Original the adjudicating authority has discussed that the amount of excise duty of ₹ 2,53,103/- which is the subject matter of refund claim was debited in the account on 28.05.2013 as sales excise duty and shown as expenditure. Later when the mistake was noticed, the same was shown as refund receivable by adjusting the amount on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

That therefore these are only after thoughts. This view of the adjudicating authority in my view is not proper. The appellant sought refund of excise duty, wrongly paid, by filing a refund claim. Only when the assessee is issued a show cause notice or a deficiency memo will the assessee come to understand the reason proposed for rejection of refund. It is then for the assessee to defend the case by producing necessary evidence. 6. In the instant case, on 28.05.2013 in the ledger account a debit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct of M/s BHEL, Haridwar account for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2013 reflecting the entries made on 28.05.2013 and 31.07.2013. 7. BHEL has issued a letter dated 24.06.2013 which was received by the appellant on 05.07.2013. In this letter it is seen stated that BHEL has not paid an amount of ₹ 2,53,103/- which was raised in the invoice as excise duty. It is pertinent to mention that the debit entry was made on 28.05.2013 for collection of excise duty which was raised by appellant in 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

 

 

 

 

 

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