2016 (2) TMI 1224 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - refund allowed but the amount credited into the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) - whether the incidence of duty has been passed on to the Customers? - Held that - As the amount, in question, is shown as Loans and Advances (Advance Recoverable) , as revealed from the books of accounts and balance sheet, there is no reason to hold that the incidence of duty was passed on to the customers. Hence, the refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim sanctioned but ordered to credit into Consumer Welfare Fund.
2. Whether the duty incidence passed on to customers.
3. Appeal against rejection of refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Issue 1: Refund claim sanctioned but ordered to credit into Consumer Welfare Fund
The Appellate Tribunal considered a case where the adjudicating authority sanctioned a refund claim of Rs. 17,77,404 but directed the amount to be credited into the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF). The appeal was filed before the Tribunal challenging the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant.

Issue 2: Whether the duty incidence passed on to customers
The main issue for consideration in this appeal was whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to the customers. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide clarification regarding the correlation between the debit and credit entries made. The appellant contended that they debited the entire duty amount, including the portion arising due to notional profit, from the customers' account and simultaneously credited the excess duty, against which the refund was filed, back to the customers' account. The appellant supported their claim by stating that the duty was paid under protest and was shown in the balance sheet under "Loans and Advances (Advance Recoverable)." A certificate from a Chartered Accountant was also furnished certifying the recoverability of the amount from the customers.

Issue 3: Appeal against rejection of refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment
After reviewing the documents and submissions, the Tribunal found that the amount in question was shown as "Loans and Advances (Advance Recoverable)" in the books of accounts and balance sheet. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to hold that the duty incidence was passed on to the customers. Consequently, the refund claim could not be rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation and accounting practices in establishing the non-passing of duty incidence to customers, ultimately impacting the eligibility for a refund claim.