TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efence. 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 [ 2015 (4) TMI 386 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] 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 material takeaway is that the mischief of unjust enrichment could not be attributed to the appellant and the reason given for denying the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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-respondent. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the documents placed on record. 4. Facts are not in dispute. 5. The assessee is the manufacturer of Railway Coaches. The refund was claimed in respect of excess Excise Duty paid by the appellant on ACCW coaches manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty 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 ₹ 3.36 crore for each Military ACCW coach was the Transaction Value; that the Indented goods have not been removed by the appellant, neither for captive consumption nor for their own use; that the appellant had received an amount of ₹ 249,64,00,000/- through NEFT towards AC-II tier (20 nos. each for 2015-16 and 2016-17) and Military ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 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 was discharged. 7.3 The Adjudicating Authority has also recorded the submissions of the appellant that the cost report was not yet finalized and that the price declared in the invoices were only provisional, to which the Adjudicating Authority has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue 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 following words : 15. In the case on hand, on a careful perusal of the records as also the orders of the authorities below, without contradiction, and as has been held above, it could be stated that the Department itself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and State monitored organisation supplying goods to Civil Supplies Corporation, which is another organ of the State. Such goods are used in relation to Public Distribution System. Hon ble High Court the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
