2015 (11) TMI 892 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Excess duty paid - Reduction in rate of duty - unjust enrichment - Held that - Letter of M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., clearly states that duty re-imbursement to the appellants was to the tune of 8.24% only. The reconciliation statement also stands produced on record. Further there is a clear certificate given by the buyer that they have not availed the Cenvat credit of duty paid by the appellants. As per the appellants, their buyers are only a marketing company and as such there is no occasion for them to avail the Cenvat credit inasmuch as the biscuits, in fully manufactured condition are supplied to their buyers, who in turn market the same, in the same condition. Similar is the position in respect of Boost and sachets. If the Commissioner (Appeals) was having any doubt about the said letter, he was in a position to get the same verified from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities of the appellants buyers. To reject the said letter given by a renowned company, without any basis is neither just nor fair. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for excess excise duty paid due to misunderstanding of duty rate reduction notification.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants, manufacturers of biscuits, who had been paying excise duty at a rate of 10.3% before a notification dated 24-2-2009 reduced the duty rate to 8.24%. Despite the notification, the appellants continued to clear their goods at the higher rate until 31-3-2009. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,59,119 for the excess duty paid in March 2009. The appellants provided a letter from their buyer, confirming reimbursement at the reduced rate and certifying non-availment of Cenvat credit on the clearances made by the appellants.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim, citing insufficient evidence. While the buyer's letter confirmed reimbursement at 8.24%, it did not include a certified statement from the Central Excise authority regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit. The Commissioner upheld the denial based on this discrepancy.

Upon review, the tribunal found the buyer's letter clear in confirming the reimbursement at the reduced rate and stating the non-availment of Cenvat credit. The appellants' argument that their buyers, being marketing companies, had no need to avail Cenvat credit was considered valid. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner for rejecting the buyer's letter without proper verification from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities of the buyers.

Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting them the refund claim for the excess excise duty paid. The decision emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence and verifying claims before denying refund requests, ensuring fairness and justice in tax matters.