2009 (11) TMI 809 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that - the appellant has able to establish that the duty incidence has not been passed on the customers and the claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment and the same is not controverted by the department - the appellant are entitled for the refund claim as the appellant has been able to establish by producing the documents, namely Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account, Chartered Accountant Certificate and Affidavit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment and examination of evidence of passing on duty burden to customers.

Analysis:
1. Refund Claim Rejection - Unjust Enrichment:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 6,71,878 by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal initially remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to determine if the claim was hit by unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that the amount was shown as receivable in their books, indicating it was not charged to the profit and loss account, citing the Beekay Hoisery Industries case. The Tribunal found that the appellant had produced evidence, including audited books, balance sheets, and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, to support their claim that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers, thus not falling under unjust enrichment. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities must focus solely on the issue of unjust enrichment, and as the appellant had provided substantial evidence, the refund claim was allowed.

2. Evidence Examination - Passing on Duty Burden:
The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented by both parties regarding the passing on of duty burden to customers. The appellant demonstrated through invoices, books of accounts, and a Chartered Accountant's certificate that they had not passed on the duty burden to customers. The appellant also highlighted that the final product was sold at a loss due to market conditions, further supporting their argument. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence, including balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, and affidavits, in establishing the non-passing of duty burden. The Tribunal found that the appellant successfully proved that the duty incidence was not transferred to customers, leading to the allowance of the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the established evidence that the duty burden was not passed on to customers, thus not falling under the bar of unjust enrichment. The detailed analysis of evidence and legal precedents cited by both parties played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision to grant the refund claim.