Case Law Details
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that refund claim of Education Cess (EC) and Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC) on Oil Industry Development Cess (OID Cess) u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 duly available as proved that burden of OID cess is not passed on to the buyer.
Facts- The appellants are engaged in manufacture of crude oil falling under Chapter sub-heading 29094000 of CETA 1985. Appellant filed refund claim on 04.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.19,13,96,099/- being the Education Cess (EC) and Secondary and Higher Education Cess (SHEC) paid by them on the Crude Oil Cess during the period from July 2004 to December 2013. The refund claim was filed consequent to the clarification issued by CBEC vide Circular No.978/2/2014 CX dated 07.01.2014.
Show cause notice dated 18.10.2014 was issued to the appellant proposing to deny the refund claim alleging that the same is hit by limitation as well as the doctrine of unjust enrichment. After due process of law, the original authority held that the refund is barred by limitation as well as is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Against this order, the appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same. Hence this appeal.
Conclusion- Held that refund of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid by the assessee for the period July 2004 to December 2013 was sought as refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The refund application was filed on the basis of the very same CBEC circular dated 07.01.2014. In para-11 of the Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the price has been remained same even after the hike of OID cess and that this proves that burden of OID cess is not passed on to the buyer.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
