Jindal Solvent Extractions Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Jindal Solvent Extractions vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 22, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/16274

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/16274
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Jul 22, 1999
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jindal Solvent Extractions

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: (1999)(113)ELT159TriDel

Excerpt

1. the short point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants' appeal if accepted, will amount to unjust enrichment.2. the facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of solvent extraction. they manufacture solvent extracted oil by solvent method from rice bran. the appellants were paying cess in terms of the vegetable oil cess act, 1983. the department held that cess was payable on the oil manufactured by the appellants. the appellants paid the cess and filed a refund claim. the refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the asstt. collector on the ground that the incidence of cess was not borne by the appellant but was passed on to the customers and therefore, in case the refund was sanctioned it will amount to unjust enrichment under section 11b of the central excise act, 1944. he, therefore, rejected the refund claim.the appellant went in appeal before the ld. commissioner (appeals) who while passing the order-in-appeal observed "i have considered the matter. since the appellants have not disputed the fact that the incidence of cess paid by them had been passed over the buyers, the refund has been rightly rejected by the asstt. collector." 3. arguing the appeal shri p.r. srivastava, ld. consultant submits that in terms of the orders passed by various courts, cess was not leviable on the oil extracted by solvent extraction method from rice bran. he submits that since cess was not leviable, the collection of cess was prohibited and illegal in terms of article 265 of the constitution of india. he submitted that since cess was illegally collected from them, therefore, the question of its retention by the govt. did not arise.ld. consultant therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed and amount paid by them as cess may be refunded.4. shri r.s. sangia, ld. dr submits that the question before the tribunal is whether the incidence of cess was passed over to the buyer/customer or not. he submitted that the.....

Full Judgment

1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants' appeal if accepted, will amount to unjust enrichment.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Solvent Extraction. They manufacture Solvent Extracted oil by solvent method from Rice Bran. The appellants were paying CESS in terms of the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983. The Department held that CESS was payable on the oil manufactured by the appellants. The appellants paid the CESS and filed a refund claim. The refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the Asstt. Collector on the ground that the incidence of CESS was not borne by the appellant but was passed on to the customers and therefore, in case the refund was sanctioned it will amount to unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He, therefore, rejected the refund claim.

The appellant went in appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who while passing the Order-in-Appeal observed "I have considered the matter. Since the appellants have not disputed the fact that the incidence of CESS paid by them had been passed over the buyers, the refund has been rightly rejected by the Asstt. Collector." 3. Arguing the appeal Shri P.R. Srivastava, ld. Consultant submits that in terms of the orders passed by various Courts, CESS was not leviable on the oil extracted by solvent extraction method from Rice Bran. He submits that since CESS was not leviable, the collection of CESS was prohibited and illegal in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that since CESS was illegally collected from them, therefore, the question of its retention by the Govt. did not arise.

Ld. Consultant therefore, prays that the appeal may be allowed and amount paid by them as CESS may be refunded.

4. Shri R.S. Sangia, ld. DR submits that the question before the Tribunal is whether the incidence of CESS was passed over to the buyer/customer or not. He submitted that the authorities below have held that the incidence of CESS was not borne by the appellant and therefore, any refund of the amount shall be prohibited under the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be rejected.

5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find on perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below that the refund claim has been rejected in the absence of any evidence that the incidence of CESS was borne by the assessee. We find that no further evidence was produced before us. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below. In the result, the appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Jindal Solvent Extractions vs Commissioner of C. Ex. Same Subject Service Tax