2010 (3) TMI 696 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - principles of unjust enrichment - Chartered Accountant Certificate to the effect that burden of duty has not been passed Held that - Certificate given by the Chartered Accountant which is only to the effect that as per the information given by the Appellant the standard practice followed by the company is that no tax and duties paid directly by the company are to be taken in the cost sheet - no evidence on record even now that duty paid, which is subject matter of this refund, are not added to the cost of their final product - The Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim, time-barred refund claims, principles of unjust enrichment, Chartered Accountant Certificate, clarification issued after the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an Appeal against the rejection of their refund claim for three different periods. The adjudicating authority deemed the refund claim for a specific period as time-barred and applied the principles of unjust enrichment, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case.

2. The contention of the Appellant was that they presented a Chartered Accountant Certificate to prove that the burden of duty had not been passed on, but this evidence was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld this decision in the impugned order.

3. The Appellant later produced a clarification from the Chartered Accountant, dated March 07, 2005, stating that the burden of duty had not been passed on. However, this clarification was issued after the passing of the impugned order, raising questions about its relevance and timing in the legal proceedings.

4. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the initial Chartered Accountant Certificate was based on the information provided by the Appellant, and there was no subsequent clarification from the Chartered Accountant until 2005. The Revenue contended that there was no concrete evidence to prove that the duty paid was not included in the cost of the final product.

5. The Tribunal examined the 2005 clarification from the Chartered Accountant, which only mentioned the standard practice of the company regarding tax and duties in the cost sheet. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that the duty paid, the subject of the refund, was not factored into the cost of the final product. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the Appeal.