TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....777/- which was later revised to Rs. 26,23,859/-. The adjudicating authority held that part of the claim amounting to Rs. 9,53,621/- was time barred, howeer he sanctioned the refund of remaining amount of Rs. 16,70,238/- Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original which sanctioned the refund, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground of unjust enrichment. Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal therefore appellant is before me. 2. Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Adjudicating authority has considered the fact that amount of refund is clearly appearing in the book of accounts as receivable. Ld. Commissioner has held contrary to this fact, only on the ground that ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed reliance on the following judgments. (a) Jonas Woodhead & Sons (I) Ltd Vs. CCE[2015(329)ELT 577(Tri. Chennai)] (b) Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE [2012(276)ELT 332(Kar.)] (c) Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs. CCE[2016(336)ELT 328(Tri. Del)] (d) Mercedez-Benz India Pvt LTd Vs. CCE[2016-TIOL-2567-MUM] (e) M/s. Papkatos Brett & Co. Ltd Vs. CCE[2016-TIOL-138-MUM] As regard the issue of additional evidence she placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE[2011 (274) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)]. She also relied upon the following judgments: (a) Elantas Beck India Ltd Vs. CCE & ST[2016(339) ELT 325(Tri. Mumbai) (b) Salve Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount shown as receivable in their balance sheet for the succeeding year. The amount shown as receivable and the refund claims submitted by the assessee appear to have existence independent from each other. The assessee has also exhibited dexterity in varying the figures to suit their purposes. As if the modification in the figures was not sufficient, the assesseehas come up with a CA certificate issued by D. R. Jain & Associates before the Commissioner(Appeals), a good eight(8) months after the refund claim had been processed by the refund sanctioning authority the Assistant Commissioner.The role of the Auditors who drew up the balance sheet and the firm which issued the CA certificate is questionable. (b) In this regard, the Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t been able to negate the presumption of duty having been passed on to the buyer under Section 12B of the CEA, 1944 and therefore the refund claim filed by them has rightly been rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals) as hit by unjust enrichment. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 5. I find that Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the Revenue's appeal setting aside the sanctioned refund order passed by the adjudicating authority stating that amount of refund claim shown in the balance sheet is not correct. He also held that C.A. certificate submitted before him is a fresh evidence which cannot be relied upon. I find that appellant though initially claimed refund for Rs. Rs. 40,33,777....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the duty incidence onto others, the claimants have produced the balance sheet for the year 2007-08, which shows in its schedule K against the head "Balance with Central Excise Department" a consolidated amount of 149.92 Crore, which reportedly covers all the receivables from Central Excise, pertaining to all of their units spread all over India. As regards the part of this consolidated amount allocated to their Patalganga unit, the claimants provided the break-up of this amount of Rs. 149.92 showing unit wise amount attribution and also produced copy of the respective ledger account [Account head no. A47329 with head name as Excise-rebate receivable Account] pertaining to Patalganga unit for the period of 01.04.07 to 31.03.08; which showed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt is quite clear and specific, I am inclined to hold that amount of refund claimed is substantially shown in the balance sheet as a receivable amount. As regards the balance sheet providing details about the passing on or otherwise of duties, it is observed that the goods in the subject case have been cleared to their claimants' own sister units on stock transfer basis after evaluating the same under rule 8 of the valuation rule provisionally. As such, the balance sheet is common for all such units of the claimants and since the amount is shown for one unit as 'receivable from government' it can not be included in costing at the recipient unit who are operating under area based exemption. In view of this, I am inclined to hold....