2007 (4) TMI 507 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) orders allowing refund claims rejected by original authority.

Appeal No. 2434/2002 and Appeal No. 1256/2004:
The issue involved in both appeals is the eligibility of refund claims by the Department, related to the procurement of Nitrogen Gas Liquified (NGL) at concessional duty rates for manufacturing ammonia and urea. The dispute arose when the duty of NGL was paid at the full rate without availing exemption under Notification No. 75/84. The key question was whether the burden of duty had been passed on to the appellant, who was the buyer of the goods.

Key Details - Appeal No. 2434/2002:
The appellants, manufacturers of liquid nitrogen, ammonia, and urea, procured NGL at concessional rates but paid full duty due to a dispute over exemption eligibility. The original authority rejected their refund claims on the grounds of not bearing the duty burden at the time of claiming. However, the Commissioner's findings emphasized the buyer's entitlement to refund, citing a relevant judgment and the payment evidence provided by the appellants.

Key Details - Appeal No. 1256/2004:
The appellant filed a refund claim, part of which was sanctioned by the original authority. The remaining amount was withheld, stating that actual payment to the seller at the time of filing the claim was irrelevant. The appellant contended that liability to pay duty was created when invoices were raised, even if the duty amount had not been paid at that time. The appellant later paid the balance amount, supporting their claim for refund.

Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that the goods were eligible for exemption, and the duty paid during the relevant period was refundable. The passing of duty burden to the buyer, as indicated in the invoices, rendered the seller ineligible for refund. The Tribunal emphasized that the actual payment of duty by the buyer was not a prerequisite for claiming a refund, as long as the duty burden had been borne. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the buyer, having borne the duty burden, was entitled to the refund, irrespective of the actual payment timing.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the department's appeals, emphasizing the buyer's entitlement to the refund due to bearing the duty burden. The decision was pronounced on 30-4-2007.