2008 (3) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - certificate issued chartered accountant very clearly establishes that the appellant in this case has not passed on incidence to the buyer certificate was given by CA. after proper verification so it is a reliable document - audited balance sheets show the amount as recoverable from the customs authorities and in the absence of any contrary evidence it has to be held that the appellant has crossed the hurdle of doctrine of unjust enrichment refund is admissible

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment doctrine.

Analysis:
The appellant provided a contract for the upgradation of facilities at a port and imported goods for the project. After completion, a refund claim for the security deposit was rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the amount was shown as recoverable from customs in their balance sheet and not passed on to buyers, citing relevant case laws. The Ld. SDR contended that there was no conclusive evidence of non-passing of duty incidence. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the doctrine of unjust enrichment and upheld the rejection, noting the need for conclusive proof. The main contention was whether the amount shown in the balance sheet as recoverable was sufficient to prove non-passing of burden to buyers.

The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reiterated the need to establish non-passing of burden to overcome the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The judgment highlighted the importance of independent verification by the assessing authority and the burden of proof on the appellant to show non-passing of duty incidence. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that the mere showing of the amount as recoverable in the balance sheet was not conclusive proof. The judgment noted the appellant's failure to incontrovertibly prove non-passing of burden despite the certificate from the chartered accountant.

The appellate tribunal analyzed the case in light of relevant judgments and the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument based on the balance sheet and the chartered accountant's certificate. The tribunal held that the appellant had not passed on the burden to buyers, as evidenced by the balance sheet entries. The tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' interpretation and set aside the rejection of the refund claim. The judgment emphasized the importance of audited balance sheets as evidence and the absence of contrary proof to establish non-passing of burden. The tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the earlier decision on the grounds of insufficient evidence to prove unjust enrichment.