2019 (11) TMI 51 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT Credit - excess amount paid on inter-unit transfer of goods - provisional assessment - the appellant reversed the credit under protest and filed a refund claim - refund rejected on the ground of limitation and unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The appellant had placed sufficient evidences to support their claim that the amount has not been collected from their customers, in the form of Cost Accountant s certificates, respective Balance Sheet etc. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without analyzing/scrutinizing these evidences simply held that the appellant was not able to establish that the burden of duty has not been passed on to others. In these circumstances, there are no other option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to analyze the Balance Sheet, Cost Accountant certificates to ascertain whether the burden of duty of ₹ 58,28,436/- has been passed on to others or otherwise - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal, provisional assessment, credit reversal, refund claim rejection, unjust enrichment, inter-unit transfer, burden of duty, evidences scrutiny, remand to Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune-I, regarding a refund claim of excess amount paid during provisional assessment. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, had taken credit of the excess amount in their cenvat account but later had to reverse it and file a refund claim. The dispute arose when the refund claim of ?58,28,436 related to inter-unit transfer of goods was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that the burden of duty had not been passed on to customers, supported by Cost Accountant certificates and Balance Sheet reflecting the claimed amount as loss and advances. However, the refund was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) without proper scrutiny of the evidence, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that this was the third round of litigation on the matter. It observed that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence, such as Cost Accountant certificates and Balance Sheet, to support their claim that the burden of duty had not been passed on in the case of inter-unit transfer of goods. Despite this, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to analyze these evidences and simply concluded that the burden of duty had been passed on. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to thoroughly examine the evidence presented, specifically the Balance Sheet and Cost Accountant certificates, to determine whether the burden of duty had been passed on or not. The Tribunal expected the proceedings to be completed within four months from the date of communication of the order.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a detailed analysis of the evidence provided by the appellant to establish whether the burden of duty had been passed on in the case of inter-unit transfer of goods.