TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 denies duty refund on staple fibre yarn due to lack of sales to independent buyers.</h1> In the case before CESTAT, Chennai, the tribunal set aside the order granting a refund of excess duty paid by the respondents on staple fibre yarn ... Refund of excess payment of duty - . As regards the sale price adopted by the assessee to work out the excess duty paid, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the same represented the sale price when such goods had been sold last before the impugned clearances were made to its sister unit. He upheld the determination of value of staple fibre yarn followed for payment of duty as appropriate. As regards unjust enrichment, the impugned order had allowed refund to the assessee – Held that - During this period there were no sale of such goods to independent buyers. In the circumstances, the appropriate provision to determine the assessable value of yarn cleared for captive consumption by its sister unit was Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - The lower appellate authority wrongly relied on case law which laid down that refund of duty paid by mistake of law was not governed by Section 11B of the Act and ordered refund of the impugned amount – matter remanded In the appellate tribunal CESTAT, Chennai case of 2008 (12) TMI 193, the Revenue filed an appeal against an order granting a refund of excess duty paid by the respondents on clearances of staple fibre yarn. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the refund, citing that the duty was paid under a mistake of law, and relied on previous judgments supporting duty refund in such cases. The Revenue argued that the assessable value claimed by the assessee was incorrect, and that the refund would lead to unjust enrichment. The tribunal noted that the clearances were made during a period when no sales to independent buyers occurred, and that the lower authority had wrongly applied case law to the situation. The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing that the assessee must be given a fair hearing. The appeal was thus disposed of on 16-12-2008.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
