9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, all the appeals are clubbed together for common disposal : Sl. No. Appeal No. OIO No. & Date Amount involved (in Rs.) 1. E/42334/2018 03/2018 (Refund) dated 31.01.2018 2,01,921/- 2. E/42336/2018 07/2018 (Refund) dated 15.02.2018 4,65,921/- 3. E/42337/2018 08/2018 (Refund) dated 22.02.2018 3,10,614/- 4. E/42338/2018 09/2018 (Refund) dated 21.02.2018 2,01,921/- 5. E/42339/2018 10/2018 (Refund) 22.02.2018 3,10,614/- 6. E/42340/2018 11.2018 (Refund) dated 22.02.2018 3,77,121/- 2. Ms. Meera Gnanasekar, Ld. Advocate, appeared for the assessee-appellant and Shri. S. Govindarajan, Ld. Departmental Representative, appeared for the Revenue-responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duty paid as the value of the coaches after finalization was less than the invoice value; that the appellant had discharged the duty on the assessable value as per Indent/purchase order; that the refund was claimed on the ground that there was difference in the Excise Duty paid on the Military ACCW coaches between transfer price and finalized cost report price for the year 2015-16; that the the seller, i.e., the appellant and the buyer, i.e., the Ministry of Defence, were not related; that there was no evidence as to the flow of additional consideration from the buyer to the seller and hence, the value as per the Indent Order was the "Transaction Value‟; that Rs. 3.36 crore for each Military ACCW coach was the Transaction Value; tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year 2015-16 was passed vide order dated 09.10.2015 under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; that as per the Provisional Assessment Order, the value for the purpose of payment of duty was to be determined as per Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 at 110% of the cost of production; that the appellant while remitting the Excise Duty, had valued the goods by adopting 110% of the cost of production of ACCW Coaches, like other coaches cleared by them for their own use, which had resulted in excess payment of Excise Duty; that the Invoice No. 278/2015-16 dated 09.03.2016 did not carry the excess duty element and that the mistake of wrong calculation had happened in the work-sheet of the appellant as per which the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly borne by the appellant and later on recovered from the Ministry of Defence. 10.1 The appellant which is engaged in the manufacture of rail coaches, established in 1952, is owned and operated by the Indian Railways and by virtue of this, it is a Government of India undertaking and as such, the ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Sescot Sheet Metal Works Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T. 545 (Mad.) can be applied to underline the fact that it cannot be said that the appellant was unjustly enriched and that thereby, the unjust enrichment attributed to the appellant has to necessarily fail. The Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Madras has held so in the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court of Madras dated 20-3-2015 in CMA 828 of 2008 in respect of M/s. SESCOT Sheet Metal Works Ltd. [2015 (321) E.L.T. 545 (Mad.)] 9.1 Department has accepted the aforementioned order of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The issue examined by the Hon'ble Court was whether unjust-enrichment would apply to State Government undertaking which applied for refund under Notification No. 111/88-C.E., dated 1-3-88. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries case referred as [2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX-CB] held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not apply to the State, as the State represents the people of the country. Relying on the same Hon'ble High Court observed that department itself accepted that party is a State funded, State controlled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
