TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant had received Investment Subsidy against Entitlement Certificate sanctioned under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy - 2010 (RIPS), which was adjusted towards payment of VAT and CST in their returns during the period January, 2014 to June, 2015. The Department had raised a demand of central excise duty on the investment subsidy. The issue was finally decided by the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 21.12.2018 setting aside the demand of duty and penalty with consequential benefits. For the said period, the appellant filed the refund claim, which was sanctioned to them. 3. The appellant had also filed the refund claim of Rs.14,34,293/- on 03.07.2019 for the amount of excise duty paid on VAT by them at their own risk for the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said order. 4. Heard Shri B.L. Yadav, Consultant for the appellant and Shri Vishwa Jeet Saharan, Authorised Representative for the respondent. 5. From the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal decided thereon is basically on the point that since the amount shown as "expenses" is not towards amount as "receivable", it cannot be established that the assessee have passed the test of unjust enrichment. I find that the said issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chambal Fertilizers and Chemical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST 2023(2) TMI 10 CESTAT-New Delhi, wherein it was noticed that the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the amount deposit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xamined critically in this case is of unjust enrichment. In this context it is notices that Central Excise duty was demanded by the department on the Investment Subsidy and Employment Generation subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Rajasthan under the RIPS Scheme. In this regard, I find that the amount received by them from the Government of Rajasthan in the form of relief on outward VAT/Sales Tax and there were no sales of goods involved in the matter to the Government of Rajasthan, therefore, the duty paid suo-moto/under protest was not recovered from them. Neither the amount of duty was recovered from other buyers because the amount of subsidy received was not on account of goods sold to them, therefore, in such a scenario....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the anticipated liability and which liability though fructified by the respondent was set aside by the CESTAT and which order attained finality. It is relevant to quote the para from the said decision as under: "We may however mention that the Counsel for the petitioner also, perhaps to bring the case of the petitioner within the Circular relied upon, has sought refund of the amount by calling it "pre-deposit", when it was not deposited by way of pre-deposit but under protest, even before any demand was raised and while the petitioner was still being investigated against. Such deposits under protest, to ease the rigors which the Tax Authorities otherwise are entitled to impose, are not unknown and judicial notice has been taken the....