9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 726 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - Appellants have borne the incidence of duty themselves and this has been demonstrated before the lower appellate authority by producing copies of the invoices, which shows that the appellants have not changed the price during the periods they were paying lesser and higher duty - Held that - Appellant should be given a second chance to go before the original authority to demonstrate the Balance Sheet and Chartered Accountant s Certificate that the impugned amount is shown as receivables from the Government and that the differential duty amount has not been passed on to the buyers - Therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for giving another opportunity to the appellants to prove that they have not passed the extra burden to anyone else.
Issues: Unjust enrichment - Incidence of duty passed on - Opportunity to prove non-passing of burden.
Analysis: The appellants argued that they did not pass on the duty incidence as the prices remained unchanged, citing the decision in CCE, Calcutta-III Vs. Panihati Rubber Ltd. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in CCE, Mumbai-II Vs. Allied Photographics India Ltd., which held that price uniformity does not conclusively prove non-passing of duty. The Tribunal noted that the review petition against this decision was also dismissed, establishing the principle that uniform pricing does not negate unjust enrichment. The appellants requested a chance to present evidence, including Balance Sheet and Chartered Accountant's Certificate, to demonstrate that the duty amount was not transferred to buyers. The Tribunal, considering this plea, set aside the previous order and remanded the case to the original authority. The appellants were granted a fresh opportunity to prove that they did not burden others with the duty amount, ensuring a fair hearing before new orders are issued. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed through remand, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellants with a fair chance to establish their claim of non-passing of the duty burden. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the need for concrete evidence to support claims of unjust enrichment and the significance of due process in such matters.
|
