2025 (11) TMI 1800

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....53 Grade--Bulk) made to M/s.EKK & Co., Perumbavoor, Ernakulam District for the period 05.01.2016 to 02.03.2016. The refund has been claimed on the ground that the said clearances were intended for implementation of projects under World Bank Loan Assistance vide Loan Number 8254 IN by the Project Management Team, Kerala State Transport Project, Thiruvananthapuram and hence, eligible for Excise Duty exemption provided under Notification No.108/95--CE dated 28.08.1995 as amended. The Appellant stated that due to oversight their dispatch system considered this as 'duty payment cement' and had wrongly paid Rs.3,75,466/-- as excise duty and that the same is fully qualified for duty exemption. Accordingly, they filed the said refund claim. The sai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ramco as well as in the customer ledger for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016 was found to be Rs.6,99,249/-- and which was not exactly the amount of excise duty claimed as refund. It was thus concluded by Revenue that there was no conclusive or corroborative proof that the incidence of excise duty has not been passed on to the buyer. The Appellant have not brought out invoice wise correlation to prove the actual payments received with reference to the thirty five invoices relating to the above said exempted clearances. Therefore, the question of unjust enrichment was not satisfactorily proved. 3. A SCN dated 25.07.2016 was issued to Appellant proposing to reject the refund claim. After due process, the Original Authority rejected the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst invoices in question, the closing balance of another claimant as reflected in the ledger in the books of the Appellant, supporting letter to this effect from the contractor declaring that no duty was reimbursed to the Appellant and that they had not taken any CENVAT credit for the duty paid by the Appellant for the supplies made during the period when the certificate was not produced. The Assessee is also not disputing the fact of delay in submission of the required certificate for clearance made during 05.01.2016, 20.03.2016 which, according to the Department, was required to be submitted at the commencement of or before affecting clearance of the goods. We find that the above requirement does not or should not result in taking away....