Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Vardhman Industries Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 24 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 2315/2012-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.173/CE/APPL/CHD-II/2012 Dated 03.05.2012 passed by CCE, Chandigarh-II]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Vardhman Industries Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chandigarh Respondents
Appearance:
Ms. Rashi, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. S. Sharma, AR for the Respondent Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Date of Hearing: 24.01.2014 FINAL ORDER NO. 50218/2014_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
A short issue is involved in the present appeal. The appellant who are engaged in the manufacture of Cold Rolled Coil, Galvanised Plain Coil/Galvanished Plain Sheet, Color Coated Sheet, G.P. Coil, G.P. Sheet falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, are clearing their finished goods provisionally as the quantum of discounts are not known at the time of clearance of the goods. The quantum of discount is quantified at the end of the financial year on the finalization of the Account. As a result of finalization of Provisional Assessments, Refund of Rs. 72,995/- became due to the appellants. Accordingly on 21.04.11, the appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 72,995/- which was rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment by the adjudicating Authority and ordered the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Account. On appeal against the said order Commissioner (appeals) upheld the impugned orders.
2. As such the issue required to be decided is as to whether the appellant refund claims would be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment or not. I find that the issue travelled before the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court as also before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of the same assessee. The Honble Punjab & Haryana in their decision dated 06.02.2006 upheld that the refund would not be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. In another case, the Honble Supreme Court in the same assessee case reported as CCE, Chandigarh M/s. Vardhman Industries Ltd. vide order dated 06.02.2006 also held in favour of the appellant.
3. Though my attention has also been drawn to other identical order of the Tribunal in the same appellants case, I do not find it necessary to refer to the same inasmuch as the issue stands decided by the decisions of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court as also by the Honble Supreme Court. Accordingly, by following the same, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounce in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
3