9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived in their unit was reversed by them. However, on query from audit the same amount was again reversed by them under protest vide Cenvat Entry No. 1163 dated 2-1-1999. The matter was agitated by them and ultimately credit was allowed to them by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 29-9-2004. They accordingly filed refund claim in respect of the subsequent amount of credit reversed by it. They were however issued a show cause notice stating that as they have not submitted their accounting treatment, profit and loss account for the respective year, the refund claim filed by them is liable to be rejected. The refund claim was rejected by Asst. Commissioner on the ground that certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant does not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... never raised before Commissioner (Appeals). 2.1 Lastly it was submitted that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to the customers and have submitted their profit and loss account as well as the Chartered Accountant Certificate to this effect. The C.A. Certificate clearly says that the amount of Rs. 6,44,352/- has been debited to Sundry Adjustment account by crediting to Modvat of Input A/c vide journal voucher Entry No. 999 dated 27-3-2000. This sundry adjustment account is maintained for booking expenses and losses relating to earlier years and is grouped under "selling, administration and other expenses" in the profit and loss account. It is specifically stated that the debit to the sundry account does not amount to passing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal in the case of Commissioner v. Cummins India Ltd. - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 525 (Tri.-Mum), wherein it was held that mere showing of amount as expenditure in profit and loss account does not establish recovery from customers and once the Chartered Accountant certificate says that the duty incidence has lot been passed on, the same has to be accepted unless the certificate is disputed. 4.1 I have considered the submissions. 5. As regards the plea of the appellants that the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not apply in the case when the inputs were not received by them, I am in agreement with the plea raised by ld. DR that unless the appellant establish that this amount does not form part of their expenditure and not recovered eithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
