2009 (4) TMI 751 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claims rejected based on unjust enrichment, appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), rejection of refund claims by adjudicating authority, reliance on Cost Accountant's certificate, eligibility for refund claim.

Issue 1: Refund claims rejected based on unjust enrichment

The respondents, manufacturers of rubber products, filed refund claims for duty paid on their products due to reclassification enabling full exemption. The claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority citing lack of evidence and unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, but the Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The adjudicating authority again rejected the claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, finding the respondents eligible for the refund.

Issue 2: Reliance on Cost Accountant's certificate

The revenue contended that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, citing previous decisions. The respondents produced a Cost Accountant's certificate, which the adjudicating authority rejected for lack of fresh corroborative evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the certificate was sufficient evidence and that the duty had not been passed on. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on various judicial pronouncements to support this conclusion.

Issue 3: Eligibility for refund claim

The Tribunal had previously directed the respondents to produce all evidence, including the Cost Accountant's certificate, regarding unjust enrichment. Despite complying with this direction, the adjudicating authority summarily rejected the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) found in favor of the respondents, emphasizing that the duty had not been passed on and that the certificate was valid evidence.