TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment of India undertaking - from the certificate submitted to lower authorities it is indicated that appellant had not passed on the incident of Central Excise Duty to the recipient of the goods hence it has to be held that the appellant has passed hurdle of unjust enrichment in the cases in hand and should given the refund of amount paid excess. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/225-229/2012 - A/31942-31946/2017 - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Sh. G. Prahlad, Advocate - for the Appellant. Sh. Tarun Kanth Basu (Asst. Commissioner) Gautham Mukherji (Asst. Commissioner (AR) - for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: Mg V. Ravindran.] Alt these appeals as filed by the appellant being on the same issue are being disposed of by a common order. The details as under. Appeal No C/225/2012 C/226/2012 C/227/2012 C/228/2012 C/229/2012 Period of Dispute 01.09.2016 to 31.07.2007 01.07.2005 to 31.08.2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority credited the amount welfare concerns, on a finding that unjust enrichment hurdle is not crossed. Again appeal was filed before the first appellate authority, again remanded Vide Order-in-Appeal the first appellant authority rejected refund claim on merits. 3. It is the submission of appellant's counsel that rejecting the appeals by the first appellant authority on merits is totally incorrect and submits that in all these cases. The first order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which was on merits in favour of the appellant was not contested by the revenue before the Tribunal hence that order has attained finality that is to see that on merits, it is held that appeals liable for refund Excise Duty is arising finalization of the provisional assessment. it is the submission that the question of unjust enrichment is not again gone into by the first appellate authority in this Impugned Order, it was submitted that (SCCL) by the certificate dated 28/07/2009 have clearly indicated that the payments made by them that deduction towards GPF are always inclusive of Excise Duty and safes tax/VAT in addition to basic value drew attention to the certificate and submits that this certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.23,17,161/- 8. Order in Original 02.06.2009 Credited to Consumer Welfare fund Rs.23,17,161/- 9. Order in Appeal 19.11.2009 Remanded for submission of additional documents Rs.23,17,161/- 10. Order in Appeal 25.02.2011 Credited to Consumer Welfare fund Rs.23,17,161/- 11. Order in Appeal 27.01.2012 Rejected the refund claim on merits Rs.23,17,161/- Appeal No.C/226/2012 1. Summary of the proceedings in Appeal No.C/226/201 2 is as follows. S. No. Nature of Adjudication Order No. dt. Final Order Amount of Refund 1. Finalisation of Provisional Assessment 09.07.2007, 31.08.2007 To submit documents refund 2. Order in A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 Order in Original 02.06.2009 Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund Rs.6059/- 7 Order in Appeal 19.11.2009 Remanded for submission of additional documents Rs.6059/- 8 Order in Original 25.02.2011 Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund Rs.6059/- 9 Order in Appeal 27.01.2012 Rejected the refund claim on merits Rs.6059/- Appeal No.C/228/2012 S. No. Nature of Adjudication Order No. dt. Final Order Amount of Refund 1 Finalisation of Provisional Assessment 30.12.2010 To submit documents for refund wrt GPF 2 Refund 23.10.2007 Rs.23,70,242/- 4 Order in Original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal 02.06.2009 Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund Rs.7,45,409/- 9 Order in Appeal 19.11.2009 Remanded for submission of additional documents Rs.7,45,409/- 10 Order in Original 25.02.2011 Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund Rs.7,45,409/- 11 Order in Appeal 27.01.2012 Rejected the refund claim on merits Rs.7,45,409/- It can be seen from the above reproduced summary of the proceedings in all these appeals, there is no dispute as to the facts the first appellate authorities order in all these appeals in Order-ln-Appeal 30/06/2008 held in favour of appellant on merits has not been challenged by the revenue before higher Judical fora. Hence, on merits in all these appeals appellant entitled to refund of the excess duty paid due the deductions towards non achievement of GPF and we hold so. On the face of such detailed findings and records, in our view the findings of first appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
