Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 3 February, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/535/2011-SM [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 629/2010 dated 03/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE Mrs. 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 Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd. P.B. No.2610, Mysore Road, Bangalore 560 026 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Bangalore-III PB. No. 5400, Queens Road, Central Revenues Building, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms Vijaya Prakash, Advocate No. 543, 12th Cross, 8th Main, J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Bangalore 560 078 For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 03/02/2015 Date of Decision: 03/02/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20239 / 2015 Per: ARCHANA WADHWA It is seen that the original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant on account of excess payment of duty on the transformers supplied by them to various Electricity Supply Companies in terms of the purchase orders and credit taken by them. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of discrepancies in the documents. On appeal against the same Commissioner (Appeals) observed that even though the original adjudicating authority has not looked into the unjust enrichment angle, that is required to be examined. Accordingly he rejected the appeal on the ground of unjust enrichment.
2. Both sides agree that the issue stands decided in the appellants own case for the earlier period vide Final Order No. 21268/2014 dated 01.08.2014 laying down that in such a scenario unjust enrichment would not apply. However I find that since the original adjudicating authority had rejected the claim on the basis of discrepancies in the documents, which fact has not been examined by Commissioner (Appeals), I deem it fit to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of examining the documents, without raising the ground of unjust enrichment. Appeal is disposed of in the above manner.
(Order pronounced in open court) (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER iss