2009 (3) TMI 817 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund rejection based on presumption of passing on duty incidence.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai involved an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim due to the failure of the appellants to rebut the presumption of passing on the duty incidence as required by Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants argued that the duty was paid by the job worker and not by them, thus they were not obligated to prove the non-passing on of the duty incidence as per Section 12B of the Act. However, it was clarified that the burden of proof lies on the person claiming the refund to establish that the duty incidence has not been passed on to any other person, as highlighted in Section 11B(1). The Tribunal referred to the Apex Court's judgment in CCE, Mumbai v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., which overruled the decision in Dollar Company, Madras v. Government of India. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

This judgment underscores the importance of understanding the statutory provisions regarding the passing on of duty incidence in refund claims under the Central Excise Act. It clarifies that the burden of proof to show that the duty incidence has not been passed on to another person rests with the claimant, as mandated by Section 11B(1). The reference to the Apex Court's decision emphasizes the authoritative interpretation of the law in such matters, guiding the Tribunal's decision-making process. By citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal ensures consistency and adherence to established legal principles in resolving disputes related to duty incidence and refund claims.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a clear interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the passing on of duty incidence in refund claims under the Central Excise Act. It highlights the claimant's responsibility to prove that the duty incidence has not been passed on to any other person, as per Section 11B(1), and reinforces the significance of legal precedents in guiding judicial decisions. The dismissal of the appeal based on these legal principles demonstrates the Tribunal's commitment to upholding the law and ensuring fair and consistent application of legal provisions in such cases.