Final Order No. 751/2002 , arising from Appeal No. E/1123/2001. Case: Commissioner Of C. Ex., Coimbatore Vs Elgi Ultra Industries. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Final Order No. 751/2002 , arising from Appeal No. E/1123/2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri A. Jayachandran, Dr, and For Respondent: Shri N. Venkataraman, Advocate And A. Vijayaraghavan, Consultant, |
| Judges | Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) And Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T) |
| Issue | Central Excises Act, 1944- Sections 11b And 12b |
| Citation | 2002 (146) ELT 396 (Tri. - Chennai) |
| Judgement Date | July 12, 2002 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral), (South Zonal Bench, Chennai)
-
This Is Revenue''s Appeal Challenging The Grant Of Refund Of An Amount Of Duty Of Rs. 41,58,566/- By The Lower Appellate Authority To The Respondents.
-
The Respondents Are Manufacturers Of Drip Irrigation System Falling Under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 84.24. The Various Components Of This Product Include Plastic (Hdpe/Ldpe) Tubes. The Respondents Manufacture These Plastic Tubes And Consume The Same Captively For The Purpose Of Manufacture Of Drip Irrigation Systems. A Dispute Had Arisen In The Past, As To Whether The Plastic Tubes/Pipes As Parts Of Drip Irrigation System Could Also Be Classified Under Cet Heading 84.24 As Claimed By The Assessee And Whether The Benefit Of Exemption Under Notification No. 56/95-C.E., Dated 16-3-95 Was Available To The Plastic Tubes Cleared For Captive Consumption. That Dispute Ultimately Came Up Before This Tribunal And, By Final Order No. 1885/99, Dated 30-7-99, This Tribunal Decided The Issue In Favour Of The Assessee. However, By That Time, The Assessee Had Already Deposited ''Under Protest'' A Total Amount Of Duty Of Rs. 92,02,446/- On Plastic Tubes For The Period October ''95 To August ''99 (Period Of Dispute In This Case). Out Of That Amount, An Amount Of Rs. 50,43,880/- Was Paid By Way Of Availment And Utilization Of Modvat Credit On The Inputs Used In The Manufacture Of The Plastic Tubes, And The Balance Amount Of Rs. 41,58,566/- Was Paid From Pla. Pursuant To The Tribunal''s Final Order Ibid, The Assessee Filed A Refund Claim In Respect Of The Latter Amount Of Rs. 41,58,566/-. Again, The Question Arose As To Whether The Refund Claim Was Hit By The Bar Of Unjust Enrichment Or Not. The Original Authority Applied The Bar Of Unjust Enrichment To The Refund Claim And Ordered The Amount To Be Credited To The Consumer Welfare Fund Under Section 11b(2) Of The Central Excise Act. The Aggrieved Assessee Preferred Appeal To The Commissioner (Appeals), Who Set Aside The Order Of The Lower Authority And Directed Refund Of The Duty. Hence The Present Appeal Of The Revenue.
-
Examined The Records And Heard Both Sides.
-
The Lower Appellate Authority Found That No Extra Money Was Collected Other Than The Price Of The Goods By The Assessee From Their Customers And That The Price Of The Goods Remained The Same For All The Customers. The Authority Held That, Since The Price Had Not Increased On Account Of Payment Of Duty, The Incidence Of Duty Could Not Be Considered To Have Passed On To The Customers. Reliance Was Placed, In This Context, On This Tribunal''s Decision In Cce, Kanpur V. Carona Cosmetics & Chemicals (P) Ltd., 2000 (118) ELT 356 (T). Appellant Has Challenged The Above Finding Of The Commissioner (Appeals) On The Ground That The Price Of A Product Was Influenced By Various Factors, Apart From The Excise Duty Element, And That The Price Can Be Kept Constant By Reducing The Profit Margin. The Lower Appellate Authority, Further, Found From The Relevant Invoices That The Assessee Had Not Collected Any Excise Duty From Their Customers. It Accepted The Chartered Accountant''s Certificates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Final Order No. 995/2003, arising from Appeal No. E/291/2003. Case: Superintending Engineer, T.N.E.B., Chennai Vs Commr. Of C. Ex., Chennai. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
...Revenue. However, Learned Sdr Cited Another Judgment Of The Tribunal Rendered In The Case Of Cce V. Elgi Ultra Industries - 2002 (146) ELT 396 (Tri. - Chennai) Wherein It Has Been Held That No Manufacturer Would Take Risk Of Not Passing On The Burden Of Duty. She Also Filed A Written Submis......
-
Final Order No. 995/2003, arising from in Appeal No. E/291/2003. Case: Superintending Engineer, T.N.E.B., Chennai Vs Commr. of C. Ex., Chennai. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
...Revenue. However, learned SDR cited another judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE v. Elgi Ultra Industries - 2002 (146) ELT 396 (Tri. - Chennai) wherein it has been held that no manufacturer would take risk of not passing on the burden of duty. She also filed a written submis......
-
Final Order No. 995/2003, arising from Appeal No. E/291/2003. Case: Superintending Engineer, T.N.E.B., Chennai Vs Commr. Of C. Ex., Chennai. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
...Revenue. However, Learned Sdr Cited Another Judgment Of The Tribunal Rendered In The Case Of Cce V. Elgi Ultra Industries - 2002 (146) ELT 396 (Tri. - Chennai) Wherein It Has Been Held That No Manufacturer Would Take Risk Of Not Passing On The Burden Of Duty. She Also Filed A Written Submis......
-
Final Order No. 995/2003, arising from in Appeal No. E/291/2003. Case: Superintending Engineer, T.N.E.B., Chennai Vs Commr. of C. Ex., Chennai. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
...Revenue. However, learned SDR cited another judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE v. Elgi Ultra Industries - 2002 (146) ELT 396 (Tri. - Chennai) wherein it has been held that no manufacturer would take risk of not passing on the burden of duty. She also filed a written submis......