2015 (10) TMI 1224 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - duty paid on the intermediate product cleared to their buyers - Unjust enrichment - Held that - LAA in the impugned order dealt the issue in detail and also relied on the apex court s judgment in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. Vs CCE 2005 (3) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . He also relied Tribunal s Larger Bench decision in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs CC Chennai 2005 (5) TMI 91 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI . The appellant failed to produce any evidence that the duty incidence is not passed on to the customers. I find that the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish unjust enrichment particularly when the amount is shown in the books of accounts as written off . Since the issue of unjust enrichment stands settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. and the Tribunal s Larger Bench SRF Ltd. (supra) and LAA has followed the Apex Court decision. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding sanction of refund on duty paid on intermediate product.
2. Application of doctrine of unjust enrichment in sanctioning the refund.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the sanction of a refund amounting to Rs. 15,39,603 on duty paid on the intermediate product cleared to buyers. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty, leading the appellant to pay a differential duty of Rs. 15,38,334 under protest. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim after a Supreme Court order, which was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority but credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The issue revolved around whether the duty incidence was passed on to the customers.

2. The Revenue's representative argued that both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority established that the duty incidence was indeed passed on to the customers. Upon examining the records, it was found that the Lower Appellate Authority (LAA) thoroughly addressed the issue and relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in a specific case, as well as a Tribunal's Larger Bench decision. The appellant failed to provide evidence to show that the duty incidence was not passed on to the customers. The burden of proof rested on the appellant to establish unjust enrichment, especially when the amount was written off in the books of accounts. The judgment cited the settled position by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal's decision on unjust enrichment, ultimately upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appeal.