2022 (7) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim of excess duty paid - price revision with retrospective effect - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - There is no real dispute with respect to the facts and circumstances. In the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the appellant have reconciled the said debit note and its breakup with the invoices, as well as the detailed chart annexed to the appeal paper book - It is further that there is no good reason to doubt the transaction between the appellant and their buyer Hero Motor Corp Ltd. It is further noticed that Hero Motor Corp Ltd, Haridwar Unit, to which the goods have been supplied is operating under Area Based exemption during the relevant period. Thus, there is no chance of Hero Motor Corp having taken Cenvat credit and utilised the same. There is no doubt as to genuineness of the transaction as well as the debit note in question issued by Hero Motor Corp Ltd, and accepted by the appellant-assessee. It is found that adequate entries have been made by the appellant in the Books of Accounts and they have credited the account of Hero Motor Corp. Further, the amount of refund claim have been shown as duty recoverable from the revenue in the Books of Accounts and the financial statements of the appellant being balance-sheet. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment due to price revision with retrospective effect.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of automotive parts, supplied goods to a purchaser under a purchase order which was later amended with retrospective effect, leading to a downward price revision. The purchaser issued a debit note reflecting the revised prices, including excise duty. The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess excise duty paid due to the price revision, supported by relevant documents. However, the revenue authorities rejected the claim citing the Supreme Court ruling in the MRF case, stating that post-clearance price fluctuations cannot impact the liability to pay excise duty. It was also noted that the duty incidence had been passed on to the purchaser, triggering the unjust enrichment clause.

The appellant contended that the debit note clearly indicated the price variation and provided detailed explanations and calculations to support their claim. They argued that the downward price revision was accepted, and the excise duty amount was not passed on to the purchaser. The appellant relied on precedents to rebut the presumption of duty passing on to the customer and emphasized that they had acted in good faith by crediting the amount in their accounts.

Upon review, the Tribunal found no dispute regarding the facts and reconciled the debit note with the invoices and other supporting documents. It was noted that the purchaser operated under an exemption scheme, eliminating the possibility of Cenvat credit utilization. The genuineness of the transaction and the appellant's accounting entries were deemed satisfactory. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order and granting the appellant the refund claim along with consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of doubt regarding the transaction and the appellant's compliance with accounting practices. The decision highlighted the genuine nature of the refund claim and the absence of unjust enrichment, ultimately entitling the appellant to the refund and related benefits as per the law.