HC allows refund of excise duty arising out of finalization of provisional assessments pre-1995 in respect of medicaments manufactured by assessee; Observes, while refund claim was initially rejected on the ground that documentary proof was not furnished, subsequent to remand from the Appellate Authority, Adjudicating Authority being satisfied that all the material documents were placed, rejected refund on premise that assessee had failed to demonstrate non-passing of duty burden and fulfillment of conditions stipulated u/s 11B of Central Excise Act; Notes that, CESTAT upheld findings of Appellate Authority who took note of SC judgment in TVS Suzuki Ltd. which held that doctrine of ‘unjust enrichment’ and provisions of amended Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 were inapplicable retrospectively; HC remarks, “In the absence of any question having been raised that a particular finding of fact is perverse, the High Court is duty-bound to answer the questions raised based on the facts and findings recorded by the Tribunal”, while elucidating that Revenue was only required to quantify refund amount but in the process thereof, issues regarding justification and completion of assessments were brought up and contrary findings were recorded while restricting assessee’s claim; Consequently, stating that aspect of assessee’s entitlement for refund had become final, except to the extent of quantification thereof, which order also attained finality in terms of CESTAT decision, HC dismisses Revenue appeal : Telangana & Andhra Pradesh HC
Citation: [TS-141-HC-2018(TEL & AP)-EXC]