TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."In the instant case a Show Notice under No. V(18)18/Refund/ECL/KLT/ASN-III/16-17/722 dt. 11.04.2017 was issued against M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd., (A subsidiary of Coal India Ltd.), holder of Central Excise Registration No. AAACE7590EEM001 alleging that they have contravened the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act '44 read with para 2.4 of Chapter 9 of CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, in as much as the said assessee have filed an online refund claim of an amount of Rs. 2,49,49,131/- dated 16.01.2017 on the ground of payment of inadvertent excess of debit of Central Excise duty in the month of March '16. It is noticed that the said claim is not supported by documentary evidence to establish the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reliance on the Chartered Accountant's Certificate, balance sheet and letter of the official of the company and held that the appellant has established that the amount of duty of excise paid on such duty in relation to which such refund is claimed was paid by them and the incidence of such duty had not been passed on by them to any other person which makes them entitled to the claim of refund. Accordingly, the appellant authority allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and rejected the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority." 3. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The main ground of the Revenue to file this appeal is that the respondent has not provided the relevant documents to show that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) examined the issue and observed as under: - 6. Discussions and Findings Sa: (i) The refund has been rejected primarily on the grounds that: apart from the seven related invoices in respect of performance incentive amounting to Rs.2,81,65,729/- there. might have been other invoices issued which had not been reflected and the burden of proving that the duty incidence has not been passed on the ultimate customer was under suspect. (ii) As mentioned in din para 5 supra, the Appellant has furnished a number of documentary evidences to substantiate their claim. These documents are certified authentic documents and needs to be taken into account. On careful examination of the said documents, I find that M/s M' Chou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....comes to Rs.4.39 crores which is in harmony with Note-18 under the head 'Short Term Loans & Advances'. (v) I find that the Sr. Manger (F) of ECL, HQ, Sanctoria, has certified that only seven invoices bearing the numbers - Performance Incentive/15-16/01 to Performance Incentive/15-16/07 all dated 31.3.2016 have been issued wherein the duty liability amounted to Rs.2,81,65,730/- and further certified that no other invoices in respect of Performance incentive were raised during 2015-16 under Central Excise registration no AAACE7590EEM001 apart from the above Invoices.' In corroboration of the above facts, I find that in Note-20 of the Notes to Statement of Profit and loss for the period ending 31.3.2016, an amount of Rs.28....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcess debit had inadvertently been made by them. In the case of CCE v Flow Tech Power, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 404 (Mad.), a question arose whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have not committed an error of law in holding that the respondent is entitled for refund since there was no unjust enrichment merely relying upon the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the Profit and Loss Account submitted by the respondent?" While dismissing the appeal filed by revenue, the Hon'ble High Court held that 'The factual position is that the duty had been absorbed by the assessee and it was submitted that the Chartered Accountant's Certificate dated 8-7-2002 and the profit and 'oss account, also confirm that the du....