9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 830 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of Excise Duty - amount paid under protest under Compounded Levy Scheme - unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - In view of the categorical declaration in the invoices that the assessee have collected duty on the basis of the transaction value, which is further supported by the accounting treatment in the books of account, it is held that there can be no presumption that the assessee has passed on the duty paid under Compounded Levy Scheme, to the buyers of their goods. Thus, the respondent has discharged presumption under Section 12B of the Act, that burden of duty has not been passed to the buyers of the goods, which is deposited under Compounded Levy Scheme - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Unjust Enrichment 2. Applicability of Compounded Levy Scheme 3. Refund Claim and Accounting Treatment 4. Presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Unjust Enrichment: The primary issue was whether the refund claim by the assessee was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that unjust enrichment is not applicable in cases under the Compounded Levy Scheme. This decision was based on precedents such as CCE, Mumbai-V v. Shree Ram Textile & Processing Mills (I) P. Ltd., which stated that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act do not apply to the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the duty paid under protest and the accounting treatment provided sufficient proof that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyers. 2. Applicability of Compounded Levy Scheme: The Revenue contended that the assessee was liable to pay duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme as per the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. The Tribunal, however, found that the goods in question were not notified for MRP-based assessment and thus did not fall under the Compounded Levy Scheme. This conclusion was supported by the Tribunal's earlier decision in CCE, Chandigarh v. Tej Ram Dharam Paul, which clarified that goods not bearing brand names, MRP, or health warnings, and packed manually, do not qualify for the Compounded Levy Scheme. 3. Refund Claim and Accounting Treatment: The assessee had paid the duty under protest and recorded it as an "Advance Central Excise Deposit" in their books, which was later transferred to the expense account. The Tribunal found this accounting treatment to be consistent with the claim that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted this view, supported by the fact that the invoices indicated that excise duty was paid on the transaction value only. 4. Presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Revenue argued that under Section 12B, it should be presumed that the duty incidence was passed on to the buyers unless proven otherwise. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee had successfully rebutted this presumption. The invoices clearly stated that the price included excise duty as per transaction value, and the accounting treatment further supported that the duty was not passed on to the buyers. This was in line with the Bombay High Court's ruling in Sandvik Asia Ltd., which stated that the manner of accounting does not necessarily imply that the duty burden has been passed on to the consumers. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order that allowed the refund claim. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had adequately demonstrated that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyers, and thus the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply. The Tribunal also affirmed that the duty was correctly paid under protest and recorded in a manner that supported the refund claim.
|
