Costs Analysis Certificate by itself would not be sufficient to claim that incidence of duty had not been passed on to its customers; said certificate must be supported by materials/evidence and, if not all, a few invoices/records.
Facts:
a) Pending claim for grant of certificates for claiming concessional rate of duty on inputs under end-use exemptions for use in manufacture of final products, the assessee received inputs on payment of duty and
paid such duty to suppliers;
b) Later, on receipt of certificates it applied for refund of duty paid on inputs. Said refund claim was rejected on ground of unjust enrichment;
c) The Assessee had produced Cost Analysis certificates obtained from qualified cost accountants showing that burden of duty paid on input was not transferred.
The High court held as under:
1) Under section 12B, every person who has paid duty of excise on any goods shall, unless contrary is proved by him, be deemed to have passed full incidence of such duty to buyer of such goods;
2) Costs Analysis Certificate by itself would not be sufficient to claim that incidence of duty had not been passed on to its customers;
3) While the assessee had claimed that said certificates were issued on basis of verification of records, but, despite various opportunities, it did not produce any evidence in support of said certificate(s) of Cost/Chartered Accountants;
4) Though it was difficult to produce all records/invoices in respect of thousands of customers, but the assessee could have produced at least few such invoices/records to show whether incidence of excise duty was passed on to customer;
5) Merely because, assessee sold final products at loss would not mean that incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers, more particularly, when invoices were issued to customers admittedly had indicated excise duty forming part of price at which vehicles were sold - Toyota Kirloskar Motor Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2013] 40 taxmann.com 56 (Karnataka)
Facts:
a) Pending claim for grant of certificates for claiming concessional rate of duty on inputs under end-use exemptions for use in manufacture of final products, the assessee received inputs on payment of duty and
paid such duty to suppliers;
b) Later, on receipt of certificates it applied for refund of duty paid on inputs. Said refund claim was rejected on ground of unjust enrichment;
c) The Assessee had produced Cost Analysis certificates obtained from qualified cost accountants showing that burden of duty paid on input was not transferred.
The High court held as under:
1) Under section 12B, every person who has paid duty of excise on any goods shall, unless contrary is proved by him, be deemed to have passed full incidence of such duty to buyer of such goods;
2) Costs Analysis Certificate by itself would not be sufficient to claim that incidence of duty had not been passed on to its customers;
3) While the assessee had claimed that said certificates were issued on basis of verification of records, but, despite various opportunities, it did not produce any evidence in support of said certificate(s) of Cost/Chartered Accountants;
4) Though it was difficult to produce all records/invoices in respect of thousands of customers, but the assessee could have produced at least few such invoices/records to show whether incidence of excise duty was passed on to customer;
5) Merely because, assessee sold final products at loss would not mean that incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers, more particularly, when invoices were issued to customers admittedly had indicated excise duty forming part of price at which vehicles were sold - Toyota Kirloskar Motor Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2013] 40 taxmann.com 56 (Karnataka)
No comments:
Post a Comment