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>Appellant's Excise Duty Refund Appeal Allowed for Remand</h1> <h3>M/s. Mak Controls & Systems (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (Appeals), Coimbatore</h3> M/s. Mak Controls & Systems (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (Appeals), Coimbatore - TMI Issues:1. Refund claim of central excise duty for 'Service Air Trolley' supplied to Indian Air Force.2. Rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment.3. Appellant's contention of not passing on the duty to the buyer.4. Discrepancy in the invoices and the supply order regarding excise duty.5. Requirement of verification of documents for establishing non-passing of duty incidence.Analysis:The appellant filed a refund claim for central excise duty on 'Service Air Trolley' supplied to Indian Air Force, contending that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer as the goods were exempted from duty. However, the claim was rejected on the basis of unjust enrichment, with authorities citing the presumption under Section 12 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that duty incidence is passed on when mentioned in invoices. The appellant argued that the duty was not collected from the buyer, supported by a supply order indicating nil excise duty and a certificate from the buyer. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in the invoices splitting the value into assessable and duty components.The appellant presented a Chartered Accountant Certificate and financial statements to prove non-passing of duty incidence, which were not submitted to the lower authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the need for verification of these documents and remanded the matter to the original authority for reconsideration. The appellant was granted a personal hearing in this regard. The Tribunal held that the appellant must establish the non-collection of duty from the buyer to be eligible for a refund, despite the presumption under Section 12 B. The appeal was allowed for remand, setting aside the impugned order for further examination based on the additional documents provided.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the appellant's burden to prove non-passing of duty incidence to claim a refund, requiring verification of documents not previously submitted to the lower authorities. The case highlights the importance of establishing the factual basis for refund claims and addressing discrepancies between invoices and supply orders to avoid unjust enrichment issues.
TaxTMI 