2018 (3) TMI 637 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of duty paid wrongly towards reversal of cenvat credit - clearance of capital goods - Held that - the appellant s case is that they were not required to pay the duty at the time of clearance of old and used non-cenvatable capital goods. Admittedly, the appellants have not placed any evidence on record to show that such capital goods were purchased by them before 1991 and no cenvat credit has been availed by them. It is well established principal of law that onus to establish that capital goods were purchased after introduction of cenvat credit, is on the assessee, who is claiming the benefit. The only evidence is the affidavit which has also been proved to be wrong by the lower authorities, inasmuch as admittedly one of the capital goods stand purchased in 2003, thus negating the appellants stand. In the absence of any evidence to show that capital goods sold by the assessee were purchased prior to introduction of CENVAT credit on capital goods, I find no merits in their stand. Unjust enrichment - Held that - Admittedly, the appellant in the present case has recovered the duty element from the purchaser of goods and as such, refund of same would be hit by the provisions of unjust enrichment. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim for duty paid on old and used capital goods.
2. Evidence requirement for establishing purchase date of capital goods.
3. Unjust enrichment in refund claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sold old and used capital goods to a company and paid duty on the transaction value. Later, they filed a refund claim stating that since the goods were purchased before cenvat credit availability, no duty was required to be paid.

2. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing lack of evidence to prove the purchase date of the capital goods. The original adjudicating authority pointed out discrepancies in the appellant's affidavit and invoices, indicating that some capital goods were purchased after 1991, contrary to the appellant's claim.

3. The tribunal emphasized the onus on the appellant to prove the purchase date of the capital goods. Since the evidence provided was deemed incorrect, the affidavit was not considered reliable. Additionally, the tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment, as the duty amount had been collected from the purchaser, making the refund inappropriate. The tribunal concluded that without evidence of purchase predating cenvat credit availability and considering the unjust enrichment aspect, the appeal was devoid of merit and thus rejected.