Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Neel Metal Products Ltd vs. Commissioner, CGST - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (04 Jul 2022)

Once it is proved that, debit/credit note have been acted upon and the incidence of duty earlier passed on, have been neutralised, refund would be admissible

MANU/CE/0227/2022

Excise

The issue in present appeal is whether the refund claim filed by the Appellant for excess duty paid due to price revision with retrospective effect, whether the same have been rightly rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.

The Appellant is a manufacturer of automotive parts and supply their finished goods to Hero Motor Corp Ltd. SCN was issued with proposal to reject the refund. The SCN was adjudicated on contest and the refund claim was rejected holding that the same was hit by unjust enrichment, vide Order-in-Original.

Tribunal in CCE, Raipur Vs. IBP Ltd. held that the presumption that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customer, once the amount of duty has been reflected in the sales invoice, definitely there is presumption that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the customer. However, this presumption is a rebuttable presumption and once the assessee produces sufficient evidence in the form of debit/credit notes or any other evidence, the burden shifts on the Department, and it is for the Department to prove that the credit note is bogus or have not been acted upon. Once it is proved that the debit/credit note have been acted upon and the incidence of duty earlier passed on, have been neutralised, the refund would be admissible.

There is no real dispute with respect to the facts and circumstances. In the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant have reconciled the said debit note and its breakup with the invoices, as well as the detailed chart annexed to the appeal paper book. There is no good reason to doubt the transaction between the Appellant and their buyer Hero Motor Corp Ltd. Hero Motor Corp Ltd, Haridwar Unit, to which the goods have been supplied is operating under 'Area Based exemption' during the relevant period. Thus, there is no chance of Hero Motor Corp having taken Cenvat credit and utilised the same.

There is no doubt as to genuineness of the transaction as well as the debit note in question issued by Hero Motor Corp Ltd, and accepted by the Appellant-assessee. Adequate entries have been made by the appellant in the Books of Accounts and they have credited the account of Hero Motor Corp. Further, the amount of refund claim have been shown as duty recoverable from the revenue in the Books of Accounts and the financial statements of the appellant being balance-sheet. Impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : DUTY   REFUND   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved