2019 (3) TMI 1176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ows Pvt Ltd., (their customer) for execution of an order. At the time of settlement with the customer it was found that the appellant had billed them excessively. Accordingly, necessary debit and credit notes were issued between the parties along with duties and taxes of such excessive billing. As this excess excise duty has already been paid, they have filed refund claim on 20.10.2014. On 11.11.2014, the department issued them a letter seeking additional information/documents which they gave on 05.12.2014. Thereafter on 22.12.2014 the refund application was returned for not filing relevant details at the time of the application. On 22.01.2015 they submitted the refund application with relevant details which was again returned on 12.02.2015....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. In view of the above, they pray that the impugned order set aside and their appeal may be allowed. 5. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. There is no dispute that the refund is admissible on merits. The two questions to be considered are the time bar and unjust enrichment. 7. Learned Chartered Accountant raises an additional point that the time bar should not apply to (a) refund of CENVAT Credit claimed under Section 11B and (b) excess duty has been paid by them which was not liable to be paid. 8. Section 11B deals with the refund of excess duty paid. It does not distinguish between duty paid in cash and duty paid through CENVA....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....diction to decide the appeal. In conclusion, I find the provision of Section 11B apply in full force in the case of the appellant including the provisions relating to any limitation of time and unjust enrichment. As far as the question of unjust enrichment is concerned the burden of proving that the excise had been collected from their customers rests on the claimant. If he fails to prove that he has not passed on the burden of excise duty the refund amount has to be credited to Consumers Welfare Fund. The refund cannot be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. In this case the appellant has paid duty in pursuance of contract between them and their customers in which they billed their customers in excess and have subsequently returned....