2011 (8) TMI 1004 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the appellant has proved by way of producing materials that the duty burden has not been passed on to the consumers.? Held that - In the present case the appellant has not discharged their burden therefore in the result by answering the substantial questions of law against the assessee and in favour of the revenue we dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order setting aside refund claim by Commissioner (Appeals) based on duty payment discrepancy.

Analysis:

Facts in Nutshell:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, filed a refund claim for overpaid duty for 1996-97 and 1997-98. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim based on credit notes showing duty not passed on to consumers. However, the CESTAT found duty had been passed on and dismissed the appeal, leading to the current challenge.

Submissions:
Appellant argued CESTAT erred in decision, citing irrelevant precedent. Revenue contended lack of evidence from appellant to support non-passing of duty burden, justifying CESTAT's decision.

The Issue:
Whether the appellant proved duty burden not passed on to consumers.

Discussion:
Assessee initially passed on duty burden but later claimed consumer paid only agreed price, seeking refund. Despite issuing credit notes, no additional evidence was presented to prove non-passing of duty burden. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied solely on credit notes, overlooking lack of substantial proof, leading to the CESTAT's decision.

Key Points:
- Lack of additional materials beyond credit notes weakened appellant's case.
- CESTAT upheld Original Authority's decision due to insufficient evidence from appellant.
- Precedent cited by appellant not applicable as burden of proof not met.
- Judgment in A.K. Spintex Ltd. distinguished due to lack of evidence in present case.
- Observations from Addison & Co. judgment not applicable as appellant failed to demonstrate non-passing of duty burden.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, upholding CESTAT's decision due to the appellant's failure to prove duty burden not passed on to consumers. The lack of substantial evidence beyond credit notes led to the rejection of the refund claim.