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 upholds assessee's refund, rejects department's appeal on unjust enrichment, excise duty refund.</h1> <h3>CCE., CHANDIGARH-III Versus GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD.</h3> CCE., CHANDIGARH-III Versus GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD. - 2012 (283) E.L.T. 561 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Department's appeal against refund sanctioned to the assessee without considering unjust enrichment.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the refund of Rs. 40 lakhs to the assessee. The respondents, engaged in the manufacture of malted food products subject to excise duty, were transferring goods in bulk to depots for packaging and marketing. The goods were cleared provisionally under Rule 9B due to unknown actual costs at the time of removal.Following a Tribunal judgment and a subsequent circular, the department asked the respondent to calculate and pay the differential duty on freight and insurance charges for a specific period. The respondent complied, depositing Rs. 3,62,94,447 with the department. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued for recovery of interest on late payment, leading to a demand confirmed against the respondent.The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the assessee to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs as a pre-condition for hearing their appeal, which was done. The appeal was dismissed, but the Tribunal later set aside the demand for interest. Upon this decision, the respondent applied for a refund of the pre-deposited amount, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner and upheld by the appellate authority.The department appealed against the refund solely on the grounds of unjust enrichment, claiming that the original and appellate authorities did not consider this aspect. However, the Tribunal found the department's plea unfounded. It noted that the goods were cleared at a lesser valuation initially, and the subsequent payment of differential excise duty on freight and insurance charges was not passed on to retail customers, with no evidence suggesting otherwise.The Tribunal emphasized that the pre-deposit was made to secure the demand confirmed in the now-set-aside orders, and as such, the department was obligated to refund the amount without creating any obstacles. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, affirming the refund of Rs. 40 lakhs to the respondent.
TaxTMI 