2019 (3) TMI 948 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess payment of duty - unjust enrichment - amount credited to Consumer Welfare Fund - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The background of the refund claim is that the appellant though paid excess duty but the rate of duty was revised downward by notification. Only due to the reason that system was not updated, the duty was paid on the higher rate, the appellant though shown the higher duty in the invoices, subsequently, the excess paid duty was adjusted and the same was given reduction in the subsequent updated payment recovered from buyers of the goods. To this effect, the appellant have made a joint certificate between the appellant and the buyers of the goods wherein it is certified that the excess duty paid shows recoverable in the invoice as adjusted in the subsequent payment from the customers. Therefore with this evidence, it is clear that incidence was not passed on to the ultimate buyer of the goods. It is clear that incidence was not passed on to the ultimate buyer of the goods. It is also observed that the appellant have obtained a Chartered Accountant certificates wherein it was certified that the amount of refund amount has been shown as amount Receivable/Recoverable from the Revenue that means the said amount was not otherwise passed on in any manner either to the buyer or to any other persons. The appellant have produced ample evidence to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on, whereas both the lower authorities have only discarded the same without any contrary evidence. To discard such evidence either the Revenue should establish that the evidence are not appropriate or incorrect or false or the counter evidence to discard the appellant s evidence should have been produced which both the lower authority have failed to do so, therefore, there is no reason to not accept the evidence such as Joint Certificates of the appellant and buyer and CA Certificate. The sanctioned amount is not liable to be credited into Consumer Welfare Fund. Since, on the fact, itself, it is clear that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person, we need not be going into various judgments relied upon by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund based on unjust enrichment principle.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, filed a refund claim due to excess duty payment on Petroleum Products cleared to depots and OMCs at higher rates before a duty reduction notification. The refund was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Central Excise Act. The appellant argued against unjust enrichment, providing joint certificates with buyers and CA certificates showing non-recovery of excess duty. The appellant cited judgments supporting their claim and emphasized that selling prices for M/S/HSD are government-controlled, making recovery impossible. They contended that being a government undertaking, unjust enrichment does not apply. The Revenue reiterated the impugned order findings.

The Tribunal considered the unjust enrichment issue, noting that the excess duty was paid due to a system update delay. The appellant provided evidence, including joint certificates and CA certificates, showing non-passing of duty incidence. The Tribunal found the evidence convincing and faulted the lower authorities for not providing contrary evidence. They concluded that the excess duty incidence was not passed on, thus overturning the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal due to the lack of evidence showing unjust enrichment. The decision emphasized the importance of evidence in determining the passing on of duty incidence and highlighted the appellant's successful demonstration of non-passing of the excess duty burden.