Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 234 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - unjust enrichment - Consumer Welfare Fund - Held that - the respondent have submitted Balance Sheet, Books of Account and Chartered Accountant certificate before the adjudicating authority to the effect incidence of duty has not been passed to any other person - the appellant, in addition also submitted the declaration of the customer to the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was declared by the customer that they have not received the supplementary excise invoice nor they have availed CENVAT credit - Appeal dismissed - Decided in favor of the assessee.
Issues:
Refund of excise duty credited to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12C - Whether incidence of duty passed on to customer - Verification of customer declaration by lower authorities. Analysis: The case involves a dispute over the refund of excise duty, where the respondent's refund was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as the incidence of duty passing to the customer was not proven. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund after considering documents submitted by the respondent and customer declarations. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the customer declarations were not verified by lower authorities, questioning their genuineness. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have verified the customer declarations submitted by the respondent. In contrast, the respondent argued that the submitted documents, including Balance Sheet and customer declarations, were sufficient to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on. The Commissioner (Appeals) had considered all submissions and evidence before concluding that the duty was not passed on. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the key issue was whether the duty incidence had been passed on. The respondent had submitted relevant documents to prove non-passing of duty, including Balance Sheet, Chartered Accountant certificate, and customer declarations. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had thoroughly examined the evidence and found no infirmity in the findings. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that no further verification of customer declarations was necessary. The Tribunal highlighted the detailed findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), which conclusively proved that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the customer. The evidence presented, including invoices, certificates, and customer statements, supported the respondent's claim for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the refund entitlement and ordering the amount to be refunded instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The judgment was pronounced on 31.10.2016, and the stay was disposed of accordingly.
|