Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Condor Footwear India Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I on 26 December, 2016
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ~~~~~ Appeal No : E/11729/2013 (Arising out of OIA-CCEA-SRT-I-SSP-392-2012-13-U-S-35A(3) dated 08/03/2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax-SURAT-I) M/s Condor Footwear India Ltd : Appellant (s) Versus C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri M. A. Patel, Consultant For Respondent (s): Shri Sameer Chitkara, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)
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?
Yes
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 CORAM :
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 26.12.2016 ORDER No. A/11896 / 2016 dated 26.12.2016 Per : Dr. D. M. Misra Heard both sides.
2. This is an appeal filed against OIA-CCEA-SRT-I-SSP-392-2012-13-U-S-35A(3) dated 08/03/2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax-SURAT-I.
3. Ld. Consultant Shri M. A. Patel for the appellant submits that the refund was sanctioned to them and allowed to be paid by the original Adjudicating Authority, whereas, on appeal filed by the Revenue before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), though on merit, the refund was sanctioned, but, it was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, by the Commissioner (Appeals), as the appellant could not satisfy, the first appellate authority that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers or any other person. The Ld. Consultant fairly accepts that they did not appear before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and presented all the evidences by which it could be shown that the incidence of duty on which refund claimed by the appellant was borne by them. He submits that all these documents are now in their possession and sincerely submits that an opportunity may be given to place the same before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Ld. AR for the Revenue has no objection.
5. I find that the original authority after considering all the evidences arrived at the conclusion that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers or any other persons, hence, satisfied the condition of unjust enrichment, and consequently allowed the refund. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) recorded his findings otherwise. I find that the appellant could not present all the evidences before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals in claiming that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers. Therefore, in my opinion, in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue of unjust enrichment afresh. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be allowed to the Appellant.
6. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court) (D. M. Misra) Member (Judicial) G.Y. ??
??
??
??
3