Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Voltas Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Voltas Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jun 16, 2004
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35662

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Excise

Case Summary

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

Excise

Key legal issue
Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Voltas Limited

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(97)ECC487

Excerpt

1. the appellant is an assessee under central excise act, 1944 and is engaged in the manufacture of air conditioning & refrigeration equipment. in the course of the manufacture, they obtained duty paid components used by them in the assembly of what was termed an fan by the department. they availed proforma credit/set off facility and during the period 1982 to 1988, pending the writ petition no. 261/1981 filed by them in the hon' be bombay high court, paid duty on such 'fans' under protest. the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 16.3.1988 holding assembly of impeller and motor did not amount to manufacture of a 'fan' under erstwhile tariff item no. 33(3). a division bench of the hon' be bombay high court rejected the appeal vide order dated 20.01.1992.2. four refund claims filed by the assessee being duty paid on such 'fans' were rejected by the proper officer, vide order dated 24.8.95 holding- i) proforma credit of rs. 6,71,341 availed was liable to be adjusted against the amounts claimed as refund. ii) bar of limitation was not called since payments were under protest. iii) the amount after letting off the proforma credit was ordered to be deposited in the consumers welfare fund instead of being paid to the assessee on account of assessee's failure to establish that the burden was not of the incidence of duty was not passed on to any other person.commissioner of central excise (appeals) rejected the appeal vide an order dated 2(5.2.99 upholding the grounds of the lower authorities.hence this appeal 3. after hearing both sides, and they agree, that payments made under protest are covered by the unjust enrichment clause following the decision of the full bench of supreme court in the case of commissioner of central excise v. allied photographies india ltd., 2004 (1(56) elt 3(sc), nothing much survives in this appeal. following allied photographies india ltd. 2004 (166) elt 3 (sc) and solar pesticides (166) elt 401 (sc), their appeal is found bereft of.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellant is an assessee under Central excise Act, 1944 and is engaged in the manufacture of Air Conditioning & Refrigeration equipment. In the course of the manufacture, they obtained duty paid components used by them in the assembly of what was termed an fan by the Department. They availed proforma credit/set off facility and during the period 1982 to 1988, pending the writ Petition No. 261/1981 filed by them in the Hon' be Bombay High Court, paid duty on such 'fans' under protest. The writ Petition was allowed vide Order dated 16.3.1988 holding assembly of impeller and motor did not amount to manufacture of a 'fan' under erstwhile Tariff Item No. 33(3). A Division Bench of the Hon' be Bombay High Court rejected the appeal vide Order dated 20.01.1992.

2. Four refund claims filed by the assessee being duty paid on such 'fans' were rejected by the Proper Officer, vide order dated 24.8.95 holding- i) Proforma credit of Rs. 6,71,341 availed was liable to be adjusted against the amounts claimed as refund.

ii) Bar of limitation was not called since payments were under protest.

iii) The amount after letting off the proforma credit was ordered to be deposited in the Consumers Welfare Fund instead of being paid to the assessee on account of assessee's failure to establish that the burden was not of the incidence of duty was not passed on to any other person.

Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejected the appeal vide an Order dated 2(5.2.99 upholding the grounds of the lower authorities.

Hence this appeal 3. After hearing both sides, and they agree, that payments made under protest are covered by the Unjust Enrichment clause following the decision of the full Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Allied Photographies India Ltd., 2004 (1(56) ELT 3(SC), nothing much survives in this appeal. Following Allied Photographies India Ltd. 2004 (166) ELT 3 (SC) and Solar Pesticides (166) ELT 401 (SC), their appeal is found bereft of merits, the same is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial