TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium. In the course of its business, the appellant procured Coal Tar Pitch (CT Pitch), from M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rourkela Steel Plant (SAIL-RSP), on payment of Central excise duty during March 1991 to October 1992. C.T Pitch falling under Chapter 27 of CETA, procured by the appellant (during the disputed period therein) was not notified under the erstwhile Modvat scheme, and as such, no Modvat credit was availed by the appellant in respect of Central excise duty paid on the C.T Pitch. 2.1 During the relevant period, there was a dispute between M/s. SAIL-RSP and the Central Excise Department as regards classification of the C.T Pitch. According to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 12.10.1993 of the Commissioner (Appeals) deciding classification of CT Pitch, is under reference of the Committee of Disputes. 2.6 The said order was challenged before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), who passed the order restoring the refund claim and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. 2.7 On 30.04.2004, in denovo adjudication, the refund claim was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2.8 The appellant filed appeal before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) against the said order and on 20.09.2004, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. 2.9 The appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order dated 03.07.2007, which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of unjust enrichment as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Hindustan Copper reported in 1997 (11) TMI 516 (SC). He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Solar Pesticides reported in 2000 (118) ELT 40 (SC). 3.1 To support of his contentions, he also relied on the following case laws : Commissioner v. Vedanta Ltd. 2024 (3) TMI 873 - CESTAT Chennai Vedanta Limited v. Commissioner 2018 (6) TMI 528 - CESTAT Chennai Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner 2023 (3) Centax 121 (Tri.-Del). 3.2 He further submits that without prejudice, the Chartered Accountant has duly certified that the appellant has shown the amount of excise duty a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice of the goods before as well as after re-classification, evaluation etc. remained the same, it can be concluded that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the consumer. Merely because the Excise duty is booked as expenditure in Profit and Loss account, it cannot be said the incidence of duty has been passed on. 20. In view of above discussion, we hold that the mere fact that the amount of differential CVD is shown as recoverable in profit and loss account is, in itself, not sufficient to prove that burden thereof has been passed by the assessee to the buyers. Onus otherwise rests upon the Department to prove the same. There is no such evidence produced by the Department. On the contrary, the assessee has placed on record the C.A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dded to the price of copper which was fixed on the basis of the LME prices. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the aforesaid statement contained in the said affidavit. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the direction contained in the impugned judgment of the High Court regarding refund of excise duty paid by the respondent on import of rectified spirit used in the manufacture of copper. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs." 10. The said issue has been further examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Vedanta Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin (supra) and this Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., gas and cost of production, plus profit. Considering the nature of goods, and for the purposes of extending subsidy thereon, the Government of India determined the Maximum Retail Price of the goods for sale to the ultimate buyers. The difference between the cost of production and the Maximum Retail Price is reimbursed by the Government of India to the appellant. If the price of goods is fixed by the Government of India, such price cannot be altered by inclusion of any duty. Thus, the issue of unjust enrichment would not be applicable. This is the view taken by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Hindustan Copper Limited (1998) 9 SCC 708." 12. Admittedly, in this case, the appellant is selling aluminium on the basis of LME Price I....