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

Carrier Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Ltd Versus CCE, Delhi-III

2017 (8) TMI 160 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Refund Claim - unjust enrichment - Rule 7 of Valuation Rules - whether the appellant have realized excess duty which they have kept with themselves without passing it further to the consumers? - Held that: - the excise duty element has nowhere been separately mentioned in the sale invoices being issued from the depot. Hence, it cannot be ascertained whether the duty element was not borne by the ultimate buyers. Since the ultimate buyers have paid the entire amount mentioned in the invoices, it 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

1460-61461/2017 - Dated:- 2-8-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Shri Amarinder Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Atul handa, AR ORDER Per : Devender Singh These two appeals pertain to the refund claims of ₹ 7,01,241/- and ₹ 6,11,387/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Air conditioners, chillers and parts thereof at their factory in Gurgaon and they stock transfer their goods from the facto .....

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 appeals against the order of the adjudicating authority and the same were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26.8.2008. The appellant filed appeals before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 14.1.2009 gave the following direction: 3. Heard both the sides and perused the record. After an extensive hearing of both the sides, we are of the view that litigation is reduced to examination of evidence to come to a conclusion whether the appellant has been unjustly enr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be proper to remit the matter back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who shall re-examine the corroborative evidence which has given rise to the Chartered Accountant s certificates to satisfy himself that claim made by the appellants was not to unjustly enrich itself. In view of the learned Commissioner (Appeal) s conclusion that the evidence is only required to be examined is to test the unjust enrichment, we require the litigation to reduce to this narrow compass only. 3. Pursuant to the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es nor did she call for a report from the Range as regards the same, which clearly shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) had gone beyond the remand order. He also pleaded that they had not unjustly enriched themselves and when the price data was made available it was seen that there was variation between the stock transfer price and the normal transaction value on the same day or the nearest day. Where the stock transfer price was less than the normal transaction value ascertained according to R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

td vs. CCE, Nagpur, 2014 (307) ELT 744 (Tri.-Mum.) (iv) CCE, Visakhapatnam-II vs. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Limited-2010 (259) ELT 513 (AP). 6. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He invited attention to the invoices. 7. Heard the parties and examined the records. 8. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into the question of unjust enrichment in compliance with the order of this Tribunal dated 14.1.2009. The quest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roduce evidence that they have paid more duty than the duty that was to be paid in terms of Rule 7 ibid. The appellant have not been able to establish that the higher duty paid by them for which the refund has been sought has not been recovered from the buyers. The appellant have argued that once the original authority has examined the plea of unjust enrichment, it is not open to Revenue to take a stand that the refund is hit by bar of unjust enrichment without further evidence. This plea of app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

attempt to prove that the refund is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. But I find that the said certificates do not support the case of the Respondents. Doctrine of unjust enrichment requires that the person who applies for refund has to prove beyond doubt that the duty paid/borne by him has not been passed on to the ultimate buyer. In the instant case, the Respondents have only been able to prove that they have paid more duty than the duty they ought to have paid in terms of Rule 7 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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