2007 (6) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Refund Chartered Accountant Certificate clearly certify that incidence of duty has not been transferred Chartered Accountant Certificates regarding absorption of cost have to be accepted unless contrary is proved so refund is allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim without granting an opportunity of hearing.
2. Discrepancy in the refund claim amount.
3. Rejection of claim due to lack of supporting documents.
4. Contention regarding unjust enrichment.
5. Acceptance of Chartered Accountant's certificate to rule out unjust enrichment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appeal arose from the rejection of the refund claim without granting an opportunity of hearing. The Original Authority had rejected the claim amounting to Rs. 1,15,827/- without providing a chance for a hearing. However, before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants revised the refund claim to be Rs. 1,59,856/-, stating a clerical error which left out an amount of Rs. 44,029/-, resulting in the claim of Rs. 1,15,827/-.

Issue 2: A discrepancy in the refund claim amount was noted, where the appellants had availed Modvat credit of Rs. 74,441/- in respect of the CVD portion, while claiming an excess payment of Rs. 85,415/-. The total calculation revealed that the actual refund claim should be around Rs. 41,383/-.

Issue 3: The authorities rejected the claim due to the appellants' failure to produce necessary documents such as balance sheets, books of accounts, ledger accounts, pre and post-import sale invoices, Cost Accountant's Certificate, and other documents to rule out unjust enrichment.

Issue 4: The appellants contended that the excess payment was not passed on to the customers, and the price remained constant, as certified by a Chartered Accountant's Certificate. However, the authorities did not accept the certificate as it was not supported by the required documents, leading to a dispute regarding unjust enrichment.

Issue 5: The key question revolved around whether the Chartered Accountant's certificate should be accepted to rule out unjust enrichment. The learned Counsel argued for the acceptance of the certificate, citing Tribunal rulings and judgments, including Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. AT & Sindia Pvt. Ltd. The Counsel highlighted various Tribunal rulings and a judgment of the Madras High Court accepting Chartered Accountant's certificates in similar cases.

In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the Chartered Accountant's certificate produced by the appellants, certifying that the claim amount was not hit by unjust enrichment. The rejection of the certificate was deemed unsustainable, and based on the records maintained by the appellants, the Tribunal ordered a refund of Rs. 41,383/-, allowing the appeal with consequential relief if any.