2022 (9) TMI 624 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of erroneously paid Central Excise duty - Erroneous calculation of Central Excise duty @ 10.30% instead of 12.36% which was discharged as excise duty in the month of March 2012 - Instead of paying differential duty, inadvertently the Appellant once again paid the entire amount of excise duty @ 12.36% - refund claimed denied on the presumption that the incidence of duty has been passed on by the Appellant to the buyer (Rail Wheel Factory) in terms of Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - It is found from the records that the Revenue has not controverted the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant. It is settled law that if the assessee has not received the amount from the buyers, it cannot be held, that the Appellant will be unjustly enriched. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of MHATRE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELAPUR 2008 (5) TMI 179 - CESTAT MUMBAI and the judgement of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., PONDICHERRY VERSUS SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES LTD. 2006 (7) TMI 222 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS are very much on the point, where it was held that Revenue has not controverted the certificate of the purchaser and certificate of the Chartered Accountant. It is settled law that if the assessee has not received the amount from the suppliers, it cannot be held, that the appellant will be unjustly enriched. Thus, it has to be held that the impugned order is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of refund claim due to presumption under Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Rejection of refund claim by Adjudicating authority and Ld.Commissioner(Appeals).
3. Principle of unjust enrichment in refund claim.
4. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case laws.

Issue 1: Denial of refund claim due to presumption under Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Appellant erroneously paid Central Excise duty at a lower rate, later realizing the mistake and issuing supplementary invoices to recover the differential duty. However, the Appellant mistakenly paid the entire excise duty again, resulting in an excess deposit. The Adjudicating authority and Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) denied the refund claim based on the presumption under Section 12B that the duty incidence was passed on to the buyer. The Appellant's argument that the duty was not passed on was supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Adjudicating authority concluded that the refund claim should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the Appellant's failure to prove contrary to the statutory presumption under Section 12B.

Issue 2: Rejection of refund claim by Adjudicating authority and Ld.Commissioner(Appeals):
The Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) confirmed the denial of the refund claim citing the Appellant's failure to provide material proof that the duty amount was borne by them and not passed on to the buyer. The certificate issued by the buyer was deemed irrelevant as it pertained to MODVAT credit. The Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and directed the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. This led to the appeal before the Tribunal challenging the denial of the refund claim.

Issue 3: Principle of unjust enrichment in refund claim:
The Appellant argued that the refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment as they had not passed on the excess Central Excise duty to the buyers. The Appellant demonstrated through supplementary invoices that the differential duty component was collected from the buyer, and the original invoice amount was not required to be repaid. The Appellant contended that the excess duty paid in error was still borne by them and not transferred to the buyer. The Tribunal was presented with the case law supporting the Appellant's position on unjust enrichment.

Issue 4: Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and case laws:
The Tribunal analyzed the facts, including the erroneous payment of Central Excise duty, the issuance of supplementary invoices, and the lack of receipt of the duty amount by the buyer. The Tribunal considered the Chartered Accountant's certificate and previous legal precedents to determine that the Appellant had not been unjustly enriched. Relying on established case law and judgments, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the Appellant in accordance with the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal reasoning leading to the Tribunal's decision in favor of the Appellant.