Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd on 3 March, 2011
Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE QATED THIS "mg 3" DAY OF MARCH 2011 PRESENT THE HOWBLE MR. LEUSTECE N.KuMAR....._' '_. 'j fr:
AND THE HOWBLE MR.3usTIcE'EiA'v:' M;x_L1-:v1Afm_VVV,,V'"
cEA.No.9;g.Q.F 20:-3.21' V BETWEEN:
C0rnn7'i'ssijo'r1Ae;?'.0f C'jaE'aLtra£...E;xcise ffiangaépre II C(isrs:fni:t$io~._r3eraL'e; P.B.E\i0.'5-400, C.R';¥§_ui_|dm_g',..4 Queens Road, " A .. V Bangaiore 4:-V560. 0'91.'-. ,..APPELLAI\iT '~ _ (B"y{§ri:,.§.Pwrgsmoé,' 'A'e£vV0cate) E§%;'$i'§'Mys{>.r%:"1.frEiT;<3ctricai Industries Ltd _ Post; Box N91222:, Tumkuvr Road, _ ' '1Hf~2Ts_hwar1thpur, " "«. E%a1ngaE0re -« 560 022. .._RESP01'-JDENT This CEA flied under Section BSH of the tantra: Excise Act, 1944, arising out of Grder dated 3,.'~'~:_2-.._2'{-3iivZ)E*3 gassed in Finai Order E999~2GO2;'2006 ,.«.i.r3j_»..Apj;3e'a.i Ne.E/2004 praying to decide the substantiai'i--.qees§i'0.n;"vaTf iaw stated therein, set aside the Order.V_pa's.seri_ifby ti2--e_& CESTAT in order passed by __ti2?.a_ QZE_E5TA"T».fi.n'=A'ppe-ei"
No.5/769204 vide its Final Order 'i-in;:i999:2s_Q.2f;'2Q0€> dated 1i:i2.2GO€> which is anriexed i~£§nrie_x'i:feJ~A é_o~..Ei5;is Appeet »._ 's This CEA coming ij'i"ir"i»fer day,' N.Ki.iMA?{ 3., deiivered the roi%ioi%;sn_g':.¢ This is 'e_i*rsv_.ap;3;eeri::i§,{ t'iie:'s..ie\%e;jij'e chaiienging the cirderV'iV';5eisshe.<§T has heid that the assess'e.e--«.EsV The assessee by an arithrjrietifiei V:_his,i;eke"v_pVe'z'd the highest amount of duty as ;Je:ii'.?';32fi:srci2i.;ajse dré'e'i*"dated 5~2~»2002 of M/s. Karnataka 'Pi§}.}'vie::f"1flrav%iis.er1'ission Corporation Limited. The price of the L;iii'i: et.i§{:i:é~;3:;a is es,23,23,24sx- whereas the price ef the Urait"e'i:'1~L0i:«3b~1 is Rs.24,96,2"?5f~« and the differential werks eut te Rs.:,73,835/~ per Unit The assessee dined Cieered three Uizits and the tetei diffeieiétisi vaiue is . ....
_ 3 ..
Rs.5,:t9f105/~. The excess duty at 15% was paid which works eut to Rs.83,56fG80/~» rounded eff te Rs.83,Q_57f~. The assessee claimed refund of the said amoeht"'d§:~.e:.ihe greund that the censemer M/s.K.P."EIC.L' the amount and the same was ber';1e--hy the_..a§see_3Seei;.w in support of such a contehtien »"'.;he-._te'sseee-.ee~_preder;e'd._ evidence te demonstrate tha*t_Ve:'th._ey hedz r*iot;j;:gaé:'she'd"'o'é:'2 the" ' excess duty burden tethe §e':*.e.d:m'e'r,.. Théefiemjnwissioner of Appeais reiying case rejected the _Sa:i:g:'1'v..ciaiafjd.' said erder the revenue The;'F.Ej;bd'r1e]tA"reiyimg en the Judgment of the coord;nate""ee_tm:hI--.m"CC""C0CH1N, vs. RAJESH CHEMICALS émA.2OO'5"{"i'9'6) ELT 64 (Trébuhai, Bangaiere), heid feet'evtfiaere"t..h:e:..e><cese payment of duty was made due to e'a"i_t'hme_tiee'i!.V. 'error it cannot be said to be considered as duty":;r§d the same is also not hit by the prexzésédne of ::;"}j.{§b_et: enrichment' The Tribuhat also relied en as Judgment the Biviséee fieech ef the eeeeiiate Tréeunei in CCE, Bnopaf Vs. Tesia Transfermers reperted in 2001 (133) EN 484 (fribunaimflefhi). Therefore it set aside the4,.QVr=-d:erV_of the authority and directed refund of the excesaem'd'té33;§----§ar§-V:j'I' _ Aggrievecf by the same, the Revenue has_-fited'::th:e'~»er'e$efi4t"at aepeat
3. Heard the counee'§--v.fd":e»the'Vreyen.:,!eéy
4. The dectrrne applies when duty is reeovereci. later if it is found that the assessee who has recove.red."_"V$'§x . is not entitied to refunitof,tE*2e eer'ne}' ,T'r".ve.:"enderlining principle is that if the burden titsauireatdtgr to the customer the assessee is en.tEtfed"1;e._,tne benefit of refund. In the instant case, taract:uai_v!sy~A.it--f§"--demor:strated that by an arithmetical mistake 1'thVe--._Ve><Vte§;s.__dt§t:§} was paid am a Credit note wag; raised, "E"n'e""*et:u"s:t.on€'er refugee te pay the excess eiety eiaimee V. ;::::riezr_24tmVVg"' out that it is a cierfcai mistake. It is in that r;:§trt:éx:; it was réeid that the burden ef exeese duty has net been passed on to the customer and ii: is paid frem the i30<:i<et of the assesses and hence the assessee is to refund of the same Thai: is the View which is ii"
the Tribunal which is in accordance wi§h..»~iaw we de not find any error in the Judgnzeniéiefv the which caiis for interference. Ae.<_;£ir.p!§ng!AY, Vt:he rejected.