2017 (1) TMI 654 - AT - Central Excise

Unjust enrichment - whether the appellant had successfully established the fact that the duty of ₹ 6,66,633/-, claimed as refund and sanctioned by the adjudicating authority had not been recovered from their customers/others? - Held that - I find that even though the adjudicating authority has sanctioned the refund but had categorically made an observation that the appellant had failed to produce sufficient evidences to establish that the burden of the duty claimed as refund has not been passed to the subsequent persons/buyers - the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of unjust enrichment - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against OIA No. SRP/233/DMN/2012-13 on whether appellant established non-recovery of duty claimed as refund and passed on to customers/buyers.

In this case, the main issue before the Appellate Tribunal was whether the appellant had successfully proven that the duty claimed as refund, amounting to ?6,66,633, had not been recovered from their customers or other parties. The adjudicating authority had sanctioned the refund but noted the lack of sufficient evidence to support the claim that the duty burden had not been passed on. The appellant, represented by Advocate Shri N. S. Patel, argued that they now possessed relevant evidence to establish non-passing of the duty burden. Consequently, they requested a remand to present these evidences for scrutiny. The Revenue's Authorized Representative did not object to this request.

The Appellate Tribunal, under the guidance of Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial), decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the evidences that would be provided by the appellant. The purpose of this remand was to enable a proper determination of the issue of unjust enrichment, ensuring that the burden of proof regarding the non-passing of duty to customers/buyers is adequately addressed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case during this process. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, indicating a positive outcome for the appellant in terms of further review and consideration of their evidence.