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 grants refund to appellants for excess duty, criticizes Commissioner, emphasizes Chartered Accountant's Certificate</h1> <h3>RCC (SALES) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the appellants were entitled to the refund as they had not passed on the excess duty amount to customers, ... In light of earlier decision, held that Chartered Accountant certificate certifying that element of duty has not been passed on to customer must be accepted – refund allowed – Comm(A) did not deliberately follow cited judgment despite having noted the same & not justified in rejecting refund Issues:- Unjust enrichment in refund casesAnalysis:The case involved appeals arising from Orders-in-Appeal where the refund was granted but the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the money to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns. The appellants argued that they had not passed on the excess duty amount to customers and provided a Chartered Accountant's Certificate to support their claim. The appellants relied on previous Tribunal rulings and a Board's Circular, which were not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to the refund despite the Commissioner's decision to deposit the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund.Upon hearing both sides and examining relevant judgments, the Tribunal found that when a Chartered Accountant certifies that the duty element has not been passed on to customers, it should be accepted. The Tribunal referred to previous cases where similar findings were made based on evidence produced. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the refund, criticizing the Commissioner (Appeals) for not following established judgments and directing the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund despite noting the relevant particulars in the order. The Tribunal held that the appellants should receive the refund based on the evidence presented, and therefore allowed the appeals with consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
