2006 (1) TMI 362 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Unjust enrichment - Stock transfer to depots - HELD THAT - We find that on stock transfer to depot, the Respondents have paid duty on the basis of factory gate price which is always higher than the depot price, for the simple reason that while clearing from the depots, cash discounts are allowed. This can be verified from the documents. The Central Excise invoice indicates the duty payment clearly. Therefore it is definitely possible to compare the factory gate invoices and depot invoices during the relevant period to come to the finding with regard to unjust enrichment. Therefore, at the relevant time, the Depot price would be Rs. 80/- and the duty leviable on Rs. 80/- at 16% would be Rs. 12.80. It is clear that the Respondent collected only Rs. 12.80 as duty from the buyer. But he paid Rs. 16/- to the Exchequer. So he would be entitled for a refund of Rs. 16.00 - Rs. 12.80 Rs. 3.20. Since lower duty has been collected from the buyer, there is no unjust enrichment. The issue is as simple as this. Since during the original proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner has scrutinized all the invoices and the Commissioner (Appeals) has also checked invoices at random, we are satisfied that there is no question of unjust enrichment in the present cases. Revenue has also not shown any instance wherein the Respondent had passed on more duty to the buyer than what has been paid to the Exchequer. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in Revenue s appeals. Hence, we reject these appeals filed by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Respondents are entitled to a refund due to the difference in prices between factory gate and depot.
2. Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies in the given scenario.

Analysis:
1. The Respondents, manufacturers of excisable paper, clear goods from the factory gate to depot on a stock transfer basis, offering cash discounts to buyers when selling from the depot. This practice results in the depot price being lower than the factory price, potentially entitling the Respondents to a refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that in all examined cases, no consideration was paid beyond the depot invoiced amount, justifying the refund without unjust enrichment. The Revenue contested this finding, arguing for a more thorough examination, including certification by a Chartered Accountant or Cost Accountant to prove non-passing of duty burden to buyers. However, the Apex Court's judgment and the Respondents' submission that duty was always collected at a lower value than the factory gate price supported the refund claim.

2. The Tribunal focused on the issue of unjust enrichment, emphasizing that it typically arises when more duty is collected from buyers than paid to the Exchequer, with a statutory presumption of duty burden passing to buyers. In this case, the duty was paid based on the factory gate price, higher than the depot price due to cash discounts. By comparing factory gate and depot invoices, the Tribunal illustrated a scenario where lower duty was collected from buyers than paid to the Exchequer, justifying a refund. The Tribunal noted that all invoices had been scrutinized during previous proceedings, confirming no unjust enrichment. As Revenue failed to demonstrate any instance of passing on excess duty to buyers, the Tribunal rejected Revenue's appeals, affirming the entitlement to a refund without unjust enrichment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the entitlement of the Respondents to a refund due to the price difference between factory gate and depot, ruling out unjust enrichment based on the specific circumstances and invoice comparisons. The judgment emphasized the importance of thorough examination of duty payment and passing on burden to buyers, ultimately deciding in favor of the Respondents and rejecting Revenue's appeals.