2005 (3) TMI 520 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) based on unjust enrichment. The dispute arose from the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, with the appellants claiming entitlement to a higher abatement rate under a specific sub-heading. The Revenue directed them to clear the goods under a different sub-heading with a lower abatement rate. The appellants sought a refund after the Revenue accepted their classification claim retrospectively. They argued that they paid duty under protest during the disputed period without any provisional assessment order, thus justifying their refund claim. The appellants contended that they did not pass on the duty burden to customers, supported by a sample invoice and referencing relevant Tribunal decisions.

The Revenue's position was that the appellants manufactured goods for a specific entity, which paid the duty and was authorized to comply with excise formalities. The Revenue argued that the duty payer, not the appellants, should demonstrate that the duty burden was not transferred to customers. The Tribunal noted that the appellants manufactured goods for the entity under a specific authorization, paying duty on its behalf. However, the burden of proving non-passing of duty to customers rested with the duty payer, not the appellants, as per a Supreme Court precedent. The appellants submitted affidavits and referenced Tribunal decisions to support their claim, but the Tribunal emphasized the need for documentary evidence to establish non-passing of duty burden.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the duty burden was not shifted to customers. Despite filing affidavits, the absence of documentary proof led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of concrete documentary evidence in proving the non-passing of duty burden to customers. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment.