TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal No.AC/CTC/DKL-I/60/2010(R) dated 29.03.2010. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. UAL-Orissa had sold their final products viz. 'Asbestos Cement Sheets' from their depots as well as through consignment agents at uniform price (inclusive of excise duty), on 'FOR' destination basis, as per their price list. The appellant offered discounts including year-end discounts as per their trade circulars by way of issuing credit notes. Since the quantum of such discounts could be known subsequent to removal of their goods from their factory, the appellant resorted to provisional assessment as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.The provisional assessments for March 2008 and April 2008 were finalized by ORDER OF FINALISAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es below have disallowed the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. Thus, they submit that the impugned order has travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and thus is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 6.2. The appellant submits Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their refund claim on the sole ground that the appellant had failed to prove that the duty element claimed to have been returned through credit notes to the immediate buyer, had ultimately reached the consumer and thus, the appellate authority held that the claim of refund was hit by the clause of unjust enrichment. In this regard, it is contended that the buyers of the goods were not registered dealers who could not avail CENVAT Credit and pass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed on the incidence of duty on discounts to its dealers. 6.5. In view of the above, the appellant submits that the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on account of unjust enrichment is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order allowing their appeal. 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 9. We observe that the issue involved in the present appeal is refund arising on account of finalization of provisional assessment. In the present case, upon finalization of provisional assessment vide Order dated 29.09.2008, it was notice that there was short payment as well as exce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e certificate from the dealers also confirms that the incidence of duty has not been passed on by the appellant to the buyers. 11.2. Accordingly, we observe that the appellant has produced sufficient evidence to establish that unjust enrichment is not applicable to this case. 12. We observe that the appellant has relied upon the decision of the CESTAT in their own case, in the case of UAL-Uttar Pradesh [2015 (329) E.L.T. 622 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein under similar circumstances where the refund which was initially rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment was allowed by the appellate authorities, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and hence, the decision attained finality. 12.1. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ma....