2003 (11) TMI 487 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under CET sub-heading 3920.12 or 3926.90, Refund claim of excess duty paid, Filing of refund claim on behalf of customers, Interpretation of Section 11B of Central Excise Act.

Classification of Goods:
The dispute arose regarding the classification of PVC coal conveyor belting under CET sub-heading 3920.12 or 3926.90. The Supreme Court decided in the case of Fenner India v. UOI that conveyor belting falls under CET sub-heading 3926.90, which carries a lower rate of duty than sub-heading 3920.12. The appellants sought a refund of excess duty of Rs. 9,91,29,859/- paid between 22-4-1987 and 31-3-1994, claiming it on behalf of their customers who were subsidiaries of Coal India Ltd.

Refund Claim and Filing on Behalf of Customers:
The appellants filed a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act on behalf of their customers. The Addl. Commissioner rejected the claim, stating that the appellants had passed on the duty burden to their buyers, and Section 11B does not allow filing a refund claim on someone else's behalf. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the claimant must be the one who has not passed on the duty burden.

Interpretation of Section 11B:
The Tribunal considered whether the law permits filing a refund claim on behalf of another entity. The appellants argued based on a previous Tribunal decision, but the Tribunal found it inapplicable. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act clearly states that a person who has not passed on the duty burden can claim a refund. In this case, only the buyers to whom the duty burden was passed could have filed the claim for refund, which they did not.

Judgment:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to disallow the refund claim. It was concluded that the appellants were not entitled to claim the refund as they had passed on the duty burden to their customers, and only the buyers who bore the duty burden could have filed the refund claim.