2015 (5) TMI 1070 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - excess Central Excuse duty paid - error in preparation of invoice - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata vs Oriental Textiles Processing Co. Pvt. Ltd 2012 (5) TMI 247 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI referred - Held that - upon proper scrutiny and analysis of the refund application, the Original Authority has sanctioned the refund in favor of the appellant. The findings of the Original Authority proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the excess central excise by the appellant incorrectly has been entirely borne by it and has not been transferred to the buyer or any other person - denial of the refund benefit and transferring the amount to the consumer welfare fund is not in conformity with the statutory provisions. The issue in the case of Oriental Textile is entirely different and is not applicable to the present case - appeal allowed - refund allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim of excess Central Excise duty paid by the appellant - Denial of refund benefit by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - Justification of rejection based on unjust enrichment principle - Interpretation of evidence regarding burden of proof - Reliance on previous tribunal decision - Applicability of consumer welfare fund transfer.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over a refund claim of excess Central Excise duty paid by the appellant during a specific period due to an error in invoice preparation. The appellant filed a refund claim, which was initially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner but later denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the principle of unjust enrichment. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant argued that the excess duty was borne by the appellant and not transferred to any other person, supported by the verification report and adjudication order. The denial of the refund benefit solely based on a previous tribunal decision was criticized for not considering the specific circumstances of the case.

The Revenue, represented by the DR, contended that the burden of proving that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer lies with the appellant. The rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment was deemed justified by the Revenue. However, the tribunal found that the appellant had satisfactorily demonstrated that the excess duty was entirely borne by them and not passed on to any other party. The verification reports and certificates provided by the buyer supported this claim, leading to the conclusion that the denial of the refund benefit and the proposed transfer to the consumer welfare fund were not in line with statutory provisions.

Upon thorough scrutiny of the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, the tribunal concluded that the denial of the refund benefit by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. It was emphasized that the decision was based on the specific facts and evidence of the case, highlighting the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each dispute rather than solely relying on precedent judgments.