2021 (7) TMI 370 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess amount of Duty and interest paid - principles of unjust enrichment - direction to credit to Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the appellant had not proved that the incidence of Duty had not been passed on to the customers - HELD THAT - The minimum/initial burden of proof stands discharged by the appellant upon production of documents in their support and its own undertaking. In the absence of any findings to the contrary, the onus shifts to the Revenue and the Revenue has miserably failed to discharge its onus. Therefore, the presumption as to the preponderance of probabilities is heavily stacked against the Revenue. Law has prescribed Accounting Standards that is required to be followed consistently. Books of Accounts are therefore to be maintained accordingly and, of course, following a consistent method of accounting. The refund here, in this case, is claimed for a few years only and just by referring to one year s Books of Account, it cannot be concluded that the expenditure having not been carried forward, the same is not considered as a receivable. In any case, nothing turns in so far as taxation is concerned on a mere accounting treatment. Moreover, this is not the basic doubt in the mind of the Adjudicating Authority who perhaps had the privilege of looking into the Books of Accounts during the course of adjudication proceedings and therefore, the view expressed by the First Appellate Authority is without any basis and the same cannot be sustained. The impugned Orders cannot be sustained as being opposed to the principles of natural justice and consequently, the matter requires re-adjudication - appeals are allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims based on provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; Denial of refund by Adjudicating Authority and First Appellate Authority on grounds of passing on Duty element to customers; Appeal challenging denial of refund and reliance on Chartered Accountant Certificate and supporting documents.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with multiple appeals concerning refund claims arising from provisional assessments under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant filed refund claims for Duty and interest, alleging overpayment for various periods. The Adjudicating Authority partly sanctioned the refund but directed it to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, citing the appellant's failure to prove non-passing of Duty to customers. The First Appellate Authority upheld this decision, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

In the arguments presented by the appellant's advocate, several key points were raised. These included challenges to the reliance on the Jurisdictional Range Officer's report, lack of evidence of passing on Duty to customers, and the introduction of new grounds beyond the original scope of assessment. The appellant also provided a Chartered Accountant Certificate and a letter asserting non-passing of Duty to customers as supporting evidence.

On the respondent's side, it was contended that the appellant failed to establish non-passing of Duty to customers, emphasizing that showing Excise Duty as expenditure implied passing it on to customers. The respondent relied on legal precedents to support their position.

The Tribunal, after considering both parties' contentions and the evidence, found flaws in the Adjudicating Authority's reliance on the Jurisdictional Range Officer's report without allowing rebuttal. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of examination of all invoices and the failure to question the credibility of the appellant's documents. It criticized the procedural flaws and principles of natural justice violations in the decision-making process.

Moreover, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of burden of proof, noting that the appellant had met the initial burden through documentation and undertakings. It criticized the Revenue for failing to disprove the appellant's claims, shifting the onus onto them. The Tribunal also discussed accounting standards and the uncertainty of Duty payment refunds, emphasizing that mere accounting treatment should not dictate tax-related decisions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication. The Authority was instructed to provide necessary documents for effective rebuttal and consider all contentions, documents, and case laws presented by the appellant before issuing a fresh order in accordance with the law. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, ensuring all appellant contentions remained open for further consideration.