TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, refunds unjust duty deposit, citing Mahavir Aluminium case</h1> <h3>REAL FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD</h3> REAL FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 205 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:Refund claim rejection, Consumer Welfare Fund credit, Provisional assessments, Section 11A applicability, Pre-deposits return, Unjust enrichment, Apex Court judgments, Show Cause Notice legality, Duty computation in cum-duty invoice, Section 11D applicability.Refund Claim Rejection:The appeal stemmed from the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 20,19,627.95 and the confirmation of the Assistant Commissioner's order to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act. The appellants contended that the refund was related to pre-deposits made as per a Stay Order and cited the Apex Court judgment in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur. They argued that the duty deposited in terms of finalization of provisional assessments would not fall under the purview of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act as there was no duty computed in cum-duty invoices.Unjust Enrichment and Apex Court Judgments:The Counsel referenced various judgments to support the contention that where amounts are pre-deposited, they should be returned, and the provisions of Section 11B or 11D are not applicable. Additionally, on the point that provisions of unjust enrichment do not apply to refunds arising from provisional assessments, the Counsel relied on specific judgments to bolster their argument.Legal Validity of Show Cause Notice:The appellants argued that the department's issuance of a Show Cause Notice proposing to recover the refund without challenging the assessment was illegal. They supported this claim by citing relevant judgments that highlighted the illegality of such actions by the department.Duty Computation in Cum-Duty Invoice:The appellants contended that as there was no duty computed in cum-duty invoices, the provisions of Section 11D could not be applied since a separate amount was not calculated in the invoice. They supported this argument by referencing multiple judgments that reinforced their position.Judgment and Relief Granted:Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the issue regarding unjust enrichment in the refund of pre-deposited amounts was in favor of the assessee based on the Apex Court judgment in the Mahavir Aluminium case. The Tribunal concluded that the amounts were deposited due to the finalization of provisional assessments, rendering the Consumer Welfare Fund credit unnecessary. Moreover, since the appellants did not represent the duty amount in their invoice, Section 11D was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal set aside the previous orders and directed the Revenue to return the pre-deposited amounts, along with interest and duty as per Supreme Court directives and Board Circulars. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 