2017 (4) TMI 851 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - refund claim forming part of finished goods - Held that - the Tribunal took into account the relevant factors such as the certificates issued by the independent Chartered Accountants. The Tribunal satisfied itself that the Chartered Accountants had verified the books and on such verification certified that the refund claimed did not form part of the finished goods. The Tribunal conclusion that the appellant had, therefore, not passed on the duty incidence to the dealers/customers cannot be said to be perverse - the dealers were not registered with the department and therefore, could not issue excisable invoices passing on the duty in turn to their customers - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against the order of the Custom and Excise Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Determination of excisable goods' value and duty payment
- Passing of central excise duty burden to customers
- Interpretation of credit notes and duty elements
- Verification of facts by Chartered Accountants
- Consideration of certificates from customers
- Disputed questions of fact in the appeal

Analysis:
1. The appeal was made against the Custom and Excise Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, challenging the order of the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's order, alleging it to be perverse, illegal, and based on surmises and conjectures. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal's decision was primarily factual in nature and not based on legal issues.

2. The case involved the determination of the value of excisable goods, specifically Gypsum Board, and whether the central excise duty burden was passed on to customers. The appellant contended that excess payment was made during the provisional assessment period, seeking a refund. The respondents argued that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers, supported by credit notes and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant.

3. The interpretation of credit notes and duty elements was crucial in the case. Initially, there was a discrepancy regarding whether the credit notes covered the duty amount. However, the respondent clarified that the credit notes included duty elements against future bill payments, and customers deducted the duty value from bills, not allowing a burden pass-through.

4. The verification of facts by Chartered Accountants played a significant role in the Tribunal's decision. The Chartered Accountants certified that the refund claimed did not form part of finished goods, indicating that the duty incidence was not passed on. Additionally, certificates from customers confirmed that they did not avail Cenvat credit and paid the final amount after adjusting credit notes.

5. The Tribunal considered all relevant factors, including the certificates and documents provided by the respondent, to conclude that the duty burden was not passed on to customers. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that it was based on factual findings and not legally erroneous. The appeal was dismissed as it raised disputed questions of fact without any substantial legal issues.