2008 (12) TMI 581 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of refund due to lack of evidence on passing extra duty burden to buyers, reversal of credit for internally consumed goods, not charging excise duty separately for auctioned goods.

1. Denial of Refund:
The Appellants were denied the refund as they failed to provide documentary evidence proving that the extra duty burden claimed had not been passed on to the buyers. The Tribunal noted that even in the second round of Appeal, no such evidence was presented. The lack of proof that the Appellants did not pass on the extra duty burden to their customers led to the dismissal of the Appeal.

2. Reversal of Credit for Internally Consumed Goods:
The Advocate argued that part of the refund related to goods internally consumed by the Appellants, for which they had reversed the credit taken. However, the mere reversal of credit was deemed insufficient to demonstrate that the Appellants had not passed on the duty burden. It was emphasized that the Appellants needed to show that the duty incidence was not included in the prices of the finished goods manufactured using the internally consumed items.

3. Not Charging Excise Duty Separately for Auctioned Goods:
Regarding the portion of the claim related to goods sold in auction without a separate excise duty charge, the Advocate contended that this absence of a separate charge did not prove that the extra duty burden had not been passed on. The Tribunal highlighted that not charging excise duty separately for auctioned goods did not establish that the duty burden was not included in the auction prices. Consequently, the arguments put forth for both types of goods failed to support the Appellants' case, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal for lack of substantiation.

This judgment underscores the importance of providing concrete documentary evidence to support refund claims and the need to demonstrate that duty burdens have not been passed on to buyers, especially in cases involving internally consumed goods and auctioned items. The decision serves as a reminder for appellants to substantiate their claims thoroughly to succeed in challenging situations where passing on duty burdens is in question.