Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amount paid under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 in respect of job-worked clearances was payable as though the goods were exempted, and whether refund of such amount was governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Analysis: The job-worked goods cleared to the principal manufacturer were held not to be exempted goods for the purpose of Rule 6(3)(b). The amount collected at 8%/10% was towards reversal or adjustment of credit relatable to common inputs, not towards central excise duty on the goods. Since the amount did not represent duty, the statutory refund restriction under Section 11B did not apply. The record also showed that the amount had not been recovered from the buyers or the principal manufacturer, so unjust enrichment was not attracted.
Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to pay the amount under Rule 6(3)(b), and its refund was allowable without being controlled by Section 11B or defeated by unjust enrichment.
Final Conclusion: The impugned refund rejection could not be sustained, and the assessee was entitled to refund of the amount paid along with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: A sum paid under Rule 6(3)(b) toward common input-credit adjustment for job-worked goods that are not exempted goods is not central excise duty, so its refund is not governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is not barred by unjust enrichment if the amount was not passed on.