Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Tehri Steels Ltd vs Cce, Meerut-I on 2 May, 2013
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision:02/05/2013
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for
Publication under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
Excise Appeal No.E/3041/2005-EX (DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.98-CE/MRT-I/2005 dated 31.05.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut (U.P.))
M/s. Tehri Steels Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance: Rep.by Shri Alok Aroa, Advocate for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No.56280/2013 Dated:02.05.2013 Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant was manufacturer of M.S.Bars, which they have cleared from their factory gate as also from their depot. While assessing the RT-12 returns in respect of the clearances made from the factory gate during the period April, 1994 to September, 1994, their Range Superintendent raised a demand of Rs.37,532/- . The said demand was paid by the appellant in the month of Jan. 1995 by debiting in their PLA and RG-23 Part-II Register.
2. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for the differential duty paid by them on the ground that inasmuch as factory gate sale price was available, there was no requirement of adopting depot sale price and demanding differential duty.
3. The refund claim filed by the assessee was rejected by the original adjudicating authority but allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, who held in favour of the assessee on merits but remanded the matter for examining unjust enrichment angle.
4. In de novo proceedings, both the authorities below have rejected the appellants refund claim on the point of unjust enrichment.
5. We find that the only issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the refund claim by the appellant is hit by bar of unjust enrichment or not. There is no dispute on the factual position that the appellants were clearing the goods at their factory gate sale by adopting lower assessable value. It was only when the jurisdictional central excise authorities raised objection, they debited the lump sum amount of Rs.37,532/- from their PLA as also RG-23 Part-II. It is also on record that no supplementary invoice was raised by them in respect of the said differential duty so paid. As such, it becomes clear that the said deposit of duty by the appellant was in respect of number of clearances made from the factory gate and the said amount was debited as a result of demand made by their jurisdictional central excise authorities. As such, it can be safely concluded that such deposit of amount was in the nature of deposit made after clearances and at the instructions of the Revenue, which has been held to be as not payable by the Tribunal. Inasmuch as, clearances had also been effected, there is no evidence on record that the appellant subsequently recovered the said amount from their customers. As such, we are of the view that refund of Rs.37,532/- is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
2