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 excise duty refund for Copper products under specific notification</h1> <h3>M/s Chadda Brass Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II</h3> M/s Chadda Brass Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II - TMI Issues:Refund of excise duty under Notification No. 67/1995 for trimmed/untrimmed sheets and circles of Copper and Brass intended for handicrafts or utensils.Analysis:The appellant, a manufacturer of Copper and Brass products, filed a claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 1,14,62,128 under Notification No. 67/1995 for the period from 12.04.2004 to 09.11.2008. The duty was paid under protest as the appellants believed they were entitled to duty exemption under specific notifications. The Original Authority initially denied the refund, stating that the duty was paid to satisfy conditions of a different notification. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging this decision.The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of refund, citing a previous decision that duty paid to satisfy conditions for exemption may not be refundable. The appellant then approached the Tribunal, arguing that the Commissioner's inference was incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of a Supreme Court decision regarding the distinction between Copper and Brass as different goods.The Tribunal, after considering both parties' arguments and examining the record, referred to the Supreme Court's ruling that Copper and Brass are distinct items. As Brass was exempted under specific notifications, the question of applying Notification 67/1995 for exempting duty on end cuttings did not arise. The Tribunal noted that the duty was paid under protest, and there was no mention of unjust enrichment in the proceedings. The appellant provided invoices showing duty not recovered from buyers, indicating no unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the refund was admissible to the appellant, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.This judgment clarifies the applicability of duty exemptions under specific notifications, the distinction between different goods, and the principle of unjust enrichment in excise duty refund cases.
TaxTMI 