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 →

CCE, C & ST, Visakhapatnam Versus M/s Rhi Clasil Limited

2017 (4) TMI 892 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

De-bonding from EOU scheme - Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that: - the duty paid by the respondent at the time of conversion is eligible for refund - In fact, when the respondent has paid duty for the second time on the goods by raising invoices, the earlier duty paid at the time of conversion becomes an extra duty and becomes a mere deposit in the hands of department - the duty paid by the respondent while de-bonding from EOU to DTA becomes a deposit in the hands of department and 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

s) who upheld the sanction of refund claim of assessee. 2. The respondents were earlier operating as an EOU and in the month of November, 2011 they intimated their intention to exit from EOU scheme. Accordingly, they paid the duties applicable on finished goods in stock. When the respondents have paid the excise duty on the finished goods in stock at the time of de-bonding, they need not pay excise duty, when the said goods are cleared in DTA. However, certain finished goods which were in stock .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3. On behalf of the department, the Ld. AR Shri M. Chandra Bose, Joint Commissioner, submitted that the appellants had paid duty on the goods at the time of de-bonding from EOU scheme. They had again paid duty on the said goods at the time of clearance in DTA. The Central Excise duty paid by them while clearing the goods in DTA was collected from the customers. Therefore, the said excise duty paid by the respondents for the second time for clearing the goods is hit by unjust enrichment and there .....

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 assessee, it will tantamount to non-fulfilment statutory obligation. So the duty paid initially is not refundable. The Central Excise duty paid for the second time at the time of clearing the goods in DTA having been collected from their customers, the same is hit by unjust enrichment and therefore the said duty is also not refundable though they have paid duty twice. 4. Against this, the Ld. Consultant Shri S.C. Choudhury, appearing on behalf of the respondent, reiterated the findings in 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

of C&Ex. Mumbai-III Vs. Manisha Rubber Enterprises [2007(211)ELT 59(Tri.-Mumbai) v) Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.&Ex, Cochin [2006(206)E.L.T242 (Tri.-Bang)] 5. I have heard the submissions made by both sides. The argument by the department is that initial duty paid by the respondent is for meeting the requirement of de-bonding from EOU to DTA. That this amount cannot be refunded, since it would tantamount of non fulfilment of mandatory requirement for de-bonding. 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

 

 

 

 

 

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