2025-VIL-1388-CESTAT-ALH-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Refund claim – Admissibility – Appellant filed a refund claim claiming that they had paid excess duty at time of clearance of final products – Assistant Commissioner sanctioned refund of duty to Appellant – Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal filed by Revenue and set aside order passed by Assistant Commissioner – Whether Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in setting aside Order-in-Original sanctioning refund to Appellant – HELD – Appellant has paid Central Excise duty at time of clearance of goods on basis of self assessment made by them. Refund claim was filed by Appellant, claiming that they have paid excess duty at time of clearance and same should be refunded to them. Claim for refund cannot be entertained, unless order of assessment or self-assessment is modified in accordance with law by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings. No appeal was filed by Appellant challenging self assessment made by them before appellate authority – Refund claim has been disallowed by Commissioner (Appeals) on ground of unjust enrichment. Appellant has declared MRP in respect of goods, which would have been included all duties and taxes paid at time of sale of goods to consumers. Even if goods were or were not to be assessed under Section 4A of the Act, duty paid was passed on to buyer of goods. Once incidence of excise duty has been passed on to buyer, Appellant cannot be said to have borne any incidence of excise duty illegally levied and therefore, they have no right to claim any refund. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is sustained – Appeal dismissed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page