2022 (9) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,746/- against two invoices dated 28.03.2018 whereby the Appellant erroneously calculated Central Excise duty @ 10.30% instead of 12.36% which was discharged as excise duty in the month of March 2012. On realizing the bona fide mistake, the Appellant issued two supplementary invoices on 30.04.2012 with an objective to recover the differential duty @ 2.06% (i.e. 12.36 % less 10.30%), however, inadvertently the Appellant once again paid the entire amount of excise duty @ 12.36% vide debit from Cenvat Credit Register as excise duty for the month of April 2012. Therefore, instead of discharging differential duty @2.06% the Appellant made excess deposit of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.5,04,393/. The Appellant filed application for refund ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yment as well as its non-recovery is reflected from the original as well as supplementary invoices per se. Accordingly it was submitted by the Appellant that the refund claim should be granted to the Appellant instead of crediting the same to Consumer Welfare Fund. 2. The matter was adjudicated by Order-in-Original dated 17.01.2014 whereby the Ld.Adjudicating authority observed as under:- "12. In view of the above findings and keeping in view of spirit of Section 11B of the C.E. Act, 1944, and Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment mentioned supra I conclude my findings as follows:- i. the refund claim to tune of Rs.5,04,393/- is barred for sanction and payment to the said assessee in as much as the said assessee has failed to d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efund claim is liable to be rejected in terms of Section 12B of CEA, 1944 and credited to Consumer Welfare Fund under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence the present Appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the refund claim is not hit by the principle of unjust enrichment as the incidence of excess Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.5,04,393/- has not been passed on to the buyers and has been borne by the Appellant themselves. The Ld.Counsel made the Bench go through the supplementary invoices wherein the differential Central Excise duty component (12.36 - 10.3) = 2.06has been collected by the Appellant from Rail Wheel Factory and credit of a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nting to Rs.5,06,393/-.   Invoice No. 5370   Supp. Invoice 5370/04 Assessable Value 2485746 2485746 0 Excise Duty 248575 298270 49715 Edu Cess 4971 5966 994 S & H Edu Cess 2486 2983 497 CST 109671 111719 2048 TOTAL 2851449 2904703 53254     Invoice No. 5381   Supp. Invoice 5381/04 Assessable Value 2411274 2411274 0 Excise Duty 241127 289353 48225 Edu Cess 4823 5787 965 S & H Edu Cess 2411 2894 482 CST 106385 108372 1987 TOTAL 2766020 2817679 51659 8. The contentions of the Appellant that they have not received the amount from their b....