2019 (2) TMI 1860 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of unjust enrichment - Refund of Excise Duty - amount credited to consumer welfare fund - goods supplied for installation and erection of solar power plant - benefit of N/N. 15/2010-CE dated 27.02.2010 - HELD THAT - The appellant have made a prima facie case that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyer of the goods, for which they are claiming refund under Notification No. 15/2010-CE - Accordingly, these appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Original Adjudicating Authority, with a direction to cross verify the certificate issued by the buyer of the goods, issued from their jurisdictional Central Excise Authority/ GST Authority and, accordingly, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refund claim of excise duty for goods supplied for installation and erection of solar power plant under Notification No 15/2010-CE.
2. Whether the refund granted has been rightly credited to consumer fund.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim of excise duty
The appellant received an order for supplying goods for a solar power plant project, seeking a refund of excise duty under Notification No. 15/2010-CE. The eligibility certificate was received after the commencement of supplies, resulting in duty payment of a significant amount. The appellant applied for a refund, which was initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the eligibility for refund but raised concerns about the passing on of duty incidence to buyers and the availing of Cenvat Credit. The appellant, dissatisfied, appealed to the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Crediting of refund to consumer fund
During the hearing, the appellant's counsel presented evidence from the company's balance sheet and an affidavit stating that the appellant did not collect excise duty from buyers. Commercial invoices were raised separately, and accounts were adjusted accordingly. A certificate from a subsidiary of the buyer confirmed the non-payment of excise duty. The appellant argued that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers, justifying the refund claim.

Judgment:
After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellant made a prima facie case of not passing on the duty incidence to buyers, supporting their claim for a refund under the notification. The Tribunal remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of the buyer's certificate and directed a reasoned order within four months. The appellant was granted the refund with interest as per rules, with instructions to cooperate with the Adjudicating Authority during the process. The miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.