2006 (9) TMI 449 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on incorrect excise duty calculation in the purchase order.

Analysis:
The appeal was against an order setting aside the rejection of a refund claim due to an error in charging excise duty in the purchase order. The appellants cleared final products at an all-inclusive price, including duties. An error in charging 13% instead of 16% excise duty led to a refund claim. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, but the Commissioner (Appeal) noted the discrepancy in excise duty rates and the assessable value. The Commissioner observed that the duty was paid at a higher rate, resulting in excess payment, and allowed the refund claim.

The Commissioner correctly concluded that the assessable value was wrongly adopted due to the lower excise duty rate, and the excess duty was not passed on to purchasers. Citing a Division Bench decision in GAIL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gwalior, it was established that passing on of duty liability occurs only upon payment by the recipient as shown in the sale document. In this case, payments were made at lower prices, indicating that the excess duty was not passed on. Therefore, the provision of unjust enrichment did not apply.

Respecting the Division Bench's decision in GAIL's case, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The judgment emphasizes the importance of correct excise duty calculation and the non-passing on of excess duty to purchasers.