2002 (12) TMI 305 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on excess duty payment; Verification of documents supporting refund claim; Passing on the duty incidence to customers; Effective duty rate discrepancy; Refund to Appellants or Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis:
The Appellants filed an Appeal against the rejection of their refund claim due to excess duty payment. The Appellants, as job workers of a principal company, mistakenly mentioned a higher duty rate of 20% instead of the actual 10%. The Assistant Commissioner initially denied the refund, stating the duty burden was passed on to consumers. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the Appeal, subject to verification. However, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim again, citing insufficient evidence. The Appellants argued that their Chartered Accountant certified the duty payment difference, supported by pay orders from the principal company, indicating the duty was directly paid by them. The Appellants failed to produce additional documents like specific debit notes or cash book entries. The Revenue contended that unless proven otherwise, the duty burden is presumed to be passed on to customers.

The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and noted that the actual duty rate was 10%, not 20% as paid by the Appellants. The crucial issue was whether the refund should go to the Appellants or the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Appellants provided a certificate from the principal company confirming the 10% duty payment, corroborated by Chartered Accountants. Despite minor discrepancies in dates, the certificates were deemed credible. The previous Order-in-Appeal acknowledged the proof of the lower duty payment and only sought verification. The Appellants presented pay orders from the principal company as evidence of direct duty payment. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the duty burden was not passed on to the principal company. Therefore, the Appellants were entitled to a refund of the excess duty paid. Consequently, the Appeal was allowed, granting the refund to the Appellants.