2006 (9) TMI 55 - AT - Central Excise

Refund Application demanded for refund excess payment of duty paid under the period of protest Department contended that appellant transfer incidence of duty to the buyer After considering the evidence authority allowed the appeal

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of appellant's name to "M/s. Saralee Household & Bodycare Pvt. Ltd."
2. Rejection of refund claim for the period 1-3-92 to 12-11-95 based on unjust enrichment.

Issue 1: Change of appellant's name to "M/s. Saralee Household & Bodycare Pvt. Ltd."
The application sought a change in the appellants' name to "M/s. Saralee Household & Bodycare Pvt. Ltd." supported by a Certificate of Incorporation from the Registrar of Companies. After due consideration and hearing both sides, the Tribunal allowed the application. Consequently, the appellants' name in the memorandum of appeal was officially changed to M/s. Saralee Household Bodycare Pvt. Ltd.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund claim for the period 1-3-92 to 12-11-95 based on unjust enrichment
The appeal contested the rejection of a refund claim for the period due to a classification dispute regarding the products manufactured by the appellants. They initially paid duty at a higher rate under protest and later claimed a refund for the excess duty paid. The claim was denied on the grounds of unjust enrichment by the original authority and upheld by the Appellate Commissioner. The appellants presented documentary evidence, including their books of account and certificates from their Chartered Accountant, to rebut the presumption that the duty burden had been passed on to the buyers. The Tribunal noted that the documentary evidence provided effectively countered the presumption of unjust enrichment. Comparisons were drawn to a previous case where similar evidence was accepted, leading to a successful refund claim. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to demonstrate that the price increase during the disputed period was not reflected in the statutory invoices. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the presumption of unjust enrichment under the Central Excise Act was successfully rebutted by the appellants. As a result, the claim for cash refund of the excess Excise Duty was allowed, and the appeal was upheld in favor of the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment allowed the change of the appellant's name and upheld the appeal regarding the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the successful rebuttal of unjust enrichment through documentary evidence and highlighting the importance of accurate reflection of price variations in statutory invoices.