2000 (11) TMI 146 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Claim for refund of duty paid based on discount given to dealers, interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, determination of entitlement to refund for a manufacturer.

Summary:
The assessee, a manufacturer of cutting tools, claimed a refund of duty paid by providing credit notes to its dealers. The claim was made within the prescribed period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal initially disallowed the claim, stating that the turnover discount did not affect the assessable value. However, the Supreme Court later held that the turnover discount is an admissible deduction. The refund was granted by the Assistant Commissioner, subject to re-deposit if the Tribunal ruled against the assessee.

The Tribunal denied the refund, claiming the burden of duty had been passed on to the consumer without evidence of the same. Section 11B sets conditions for refund claims, requiring proof that duty incidence was not passed on. The Act does not focus on the ultimate consumer but on preventing unjust enrichment for the person who paid the duty. The claimant must show that the duty burden was not shifted to any other person to qualify for a refund.

The Tribunal's decision was deemed erroneous as the assessee had met all conditions under Section 11B. The Act aims to prevent unjust enrichment for the duty payer seeking a refund. The term 'buyer' in the Act does not necessarily refer to the ultimate consumer but to the purchaser from the duty payer. The Tribunal's denial of the refund despite the assessee proving non-passage of duty burden to buyers was incorrect.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was overturned, and the assessee was found entitled to the refund as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.