TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 allows appeal in refund claim case under Chewing Tobacco Rules</h1> <h3>Miraj Products (P) Ltd. Versus CCE Jaipur</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the Appellant in a case concerning the rejection of a refund claim under the Chewing Tobacco & ... Refund claim - excess duty paid under the provision of Chewing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - denial on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that: - when the Appellant has produced their ledger account and they are showing excess duty payment as debts or money receivable from Revenue and this fact has further been supported by the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant, then It seems that there is no question of any further proof required to be submitted by the Appellant - The department fails to prove that said excess duty paid of ₹ 24 lacs was recovered by the assessee from the customers. Thus, the said excess burden of duty was not passed on to the customers by the Appellant - refund allowed - decided in favor of assessee. Issues:Refund claim rejection under Chewing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing chewing tobacco, paid duty under Compound Levy Rules based on the number of packing machines. A duty reduction notification led to an excess payment realization of Rs. 24 lakhs for April 2010. A refund claim was filed and initially granted by the Assistant Commissioner but later rejected by the Commissioner. The main contention was the test of 'no unjust enrichment,' with the appellant arguing the duty was not passed on to customers, supported by ledger entries and a Chartered Accountant certificate. The Revenue argued against refund, emphasizing the 'no unjust enrichment' test non-compliance. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence sufficient, citing the Chartered Accountant certificate as crucial, following precedents like Tirumala Bearings and the Allahabad High Court's decision in CCE v/s Dabur India, where the duty was deemed not passed on to buyers. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.
TaxTMI 
