Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (4) TMI 612

the refund claim of appellant is hit by unjust enrichment or otherwise? - Held that: - duty was deposited during investigation with reference to removal of goods manufactured by appellant on job work basis - the goods were undisputedly dutiable therefore payment made by the appellant is differential duty therefore it cannot be said that amount paid by the appellant is deposit and not the duty. - The refund of duty paid in excess is subject to test of unjust enrichment as provided under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - unjust enrichment is very much applicable in the present case which the appellant could not prove that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person, accordingly, impugned order is sustainable. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

wherein vide final Order dated 24-08-2005 appeal was allowed. Being aggrieved by the Order of the CESTAT, Revenue preferred appeal before Hon 'ble Bombay High Court. Meanwhile pursuance to the CESTAT order dated 24-08-2005, appellant filed another refund claim for the same amount of ₹ 2,24,468/- on 28-10-2005. In the Revenue's appeal before Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27-09-2006 remanded the matter to the CESTAT for re-examining issue of unjust enrichment a fresh. The said remand matter is covered under Appeal No. E/ 3739/03. With reference to the appellant's refund claim filed on 28-10-2005, the Asstt. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 27-9-2006 sanctioned the refund claim relying on CESTAT order date .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

hava sheva [2015 (315) E.L.T 478(Tri. Mumbai)] 3. On the other hand, Shri. N.N. Prabhudsai, Ld. Superintendent(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that appellant during investigation paid excise duty and goods cleared on job work basis, therefore it cannot be said that refund is of deposit and not of duty. He submits that irrespective of any nature of refund unjust enrichment is applicable on all types of refund. He submits that in earlier order, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal on the basis of decision in case of Parle International Ltd Vs, UOI [2001 (127) E.L.T. 329 (Guj.)], however the said judgment was reversed by Hon ble Supreme Court. In support of his submission he pla .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||