2012 (6) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Unjust enrichment - rejection of refund claim for want of documents showing that there was no unjust enrichment - appellant submitted refund claim on the ground that that they had passed on cash discount and performance based discount by issuing credit notes half yearly to their dealers - Held that - Since, appellants have not produced any evidence in the form of Chartered Accountant statement or balance sheet, other than making a statement that they have passed on discounts and discounts includes the element of excise duty also, to show that there is no unjust enrichment, hence appellant s plea stands rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim based on passed discounts; Evidence of unjust-enrichment required.

Analysis:
The appellant submitted a refund claim, contending that they had passed on cash and performance-based discounts by issuing credit notes to their dealers. However, the claim was rejected due to the lack of evidence demonstrating the absence of unjust-enrichment. The appellant argued that the discounts were reflected in their price lists, and credit notes were issued once the quantum of discounts was determined. They maintained that the discounts, inclusive of excise duty, were passed on to customers, thus negating any unjust-enrichment. Reference was made to a judgment supporting their position.

During the hearing, the appellant was absent, but written submissions were considered. The Departmental Representative highlighted the absence of concrete evidence proving that the discounts had been passed on to the end customers, leading to unjust-enrichment on the part of the seller. It was noted that no Chartered Accountant statement or balance sheet was provided to substantiate the passing on of benefits and the absence of unjust-enrichment concerning duty liability. The duty was charged at the time of goods clearance, including the discounts, without evidence of considering the excise duty benefit.

The Tribunal concurred with the Departmental Representative, emphasizing the lack of evidence beyond mere statements from the appellant to establish the absence of unjust-enrichment. As a result, the appeal was deemed meritless and rejected. The judgment underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims of passing on discounts and avoiding unjust-enrichment, especially concerning excise duty liabilities.