Comet Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Comet Paints Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 30, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/26430

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/26430
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Oct 30, 2001
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

Comet Paints Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Excerpt

.....the schedule to the erstwhile central excise tariff and were clearing the same on payment of duty. in 1985 they came to know that the goods in question were exempted from payment of duty in terms of notification no. 179/99 dt.18.6.77 as the same were being manufactured without the aid of power.they filed a classification list in august 1985 claiming exemption under the above mentioned notification and the same was approved on 20.11.1985, extending the benefit thereof on 24.12.1985. the appellants filed claim for refund of rs. 1,22,566.85 being the duty paid by them during the period 30.4.83 to 18.8.85. the claim was proposed to be rejected on the ground of time bar. the assistant collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation and further on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the duty was being paid under protest. the commission (appeals) dismissed the appeal filed before him both on the ground of time bar as well as on the ground that the appellants had not produced any proof to substantiate their claim that the duty burden was not passed on by them to their customer, and therefore sub-section (2) of section 11b would apply to the refund claim. hence this appeal.2. the appellants asked for decision on merits and hence head ld. dr perused the records.although the appellants have stated that duty was paid by them during the relevant period under protest, there is no proof of payment of duty under protest. there is also nothing to show that the bar of unjust enrichment will not operate against them since they have not produced any evidence to show that the duty burden was not passed by them to their customers therefore their claim both on payment of duty under protest and not having passed on the incidence of duty to their customers lack substantiation and therefore fails. in these view of the matter rejection on both ground is sustainable, accordingly i uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants herein were engaged in the manufacture of Thinners and Solvents falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and were clearing the same on payment of duty. In 1985 they came to know that the goods in question were exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 179/99 dt.

18.6.77 as the same were being manufactured without the aid of power.

They filed a classification list in August 1985 claiming exemption under the above mentioned notification and the same was approved on 20.11.1985, extending the benefit thereof on 24.12.1985. The appellants filed claim for refund of Rs. 1,22,566.85 being the duty paid by them during the period 30.4.83 to 18.8.85. The claim was proposed to be rejected on the ground of time bar. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation and further on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the duty was being paid under protest. The Commission (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed before him both on the ground of time bar as well as on the ground that the appellants had not produced any proof to substantiate their claim that the duty burden was not passed on by them to their customer, and therefore Sub-Section (2) of Section 11B would apply to the refund claim. Hence this appeal.

2. The appellants asked for decision on merits and hence head Ld. DR perused the records.Although the appellants have stated that duty was paid by them during the relevant period under protest, there is no proof of payment of duty under protest. There is also nothing to show that the bar of unjust enrichment will not operate against them since they have not produced any evidence to show that the duty burden was not passed by them to their customers therefore their claim both on payment of duty under protest and not having passed on the incidence of duty to their customers lack substantiation and therefore fails. In these view of the matter rejection on both ground is sustainable, accordingly I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Comet Paints Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax