Case Law Details
Sun Metallics & Alloys Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT held that so far as the issue of unjust enrichment is concerned there is certificate of the Chartered Accountant as well as the affidavit of the appellant specifically mentioning therein that the burden towards Cenvat credit, interest and penalty was never passed on to the consumers. The Chartered accountant has issued the certificate on the basis of books of accounts and the other related relevant documents produced before them. Merely because the certificate is not as per the liking of the authorities below, it cannot be brushed aside as no specific format of certificate has been prescribed by the statute. If the department proves anything contrary to the statement mentioned in the certificate then certainly they have a valid ground to discard it, but this is not the case anywhere.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-Thane), GST&CX, Mumbai by which the learned Commissioner rejected by appeal filed by the appellant.
2. The issue herein is rejection of refund claim amounting Rs.10,50,329/- [Rs.5,87,444/- Cenvat credit+ Rs.3,16,024/- towards interest + Rs. 1,46,861/- towards penalty], which admittedly was paid by the appellant during investigation towards reversal of Cenvat credit, interest and penalty somewhere in the year 2010. Out of this amount, Rs.2,17,946/- (inclusive of interest & penalty) was rejected on account of beyond limitation, however refund was sanctioned to the extent of Rs.8,32,383/- but was transferred to the a/c of ‘Consumer Welfare Funds’ on the ground of principles of unjust enrichment for non-production of evidence in order to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyers or
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Useful