2001 (1) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of duty under Central Excise Act.
2. Burden of duty passed on to customers.
3. Conclusive evidence from the Chartered Accountant.
4. Rejection of claim for refund based on evidence.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim for refund of duty under Central Excise Act
The petitioner sought reference of questions of law arising from the Customs Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) order. The Collector of Central Excise held the claim for refund of duty as admissible but directed the credit to the consumers welfare fund due to the bar of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, stating that the evidence presented did not prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claim.

Issue 2: Burden of duty passed on to customers
The petitioner argued that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers, supported by a certificate from a Chartered Accountant and affidavits from customers. However, the Tribunal found that the documents provided were insufficient to prove that the duty burden had not been transferred to customers. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence, including invoices and the Chartered Accountant's certificate, did not support the petitioner's claim, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.

Issue 3: Conclusive evidence from the Chartered Accountant
The petitioner contended that the certificate from the Chartered Accountant was conclusive evidence that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the certificate only indicated the excise duty paid under protest and did not prove the non-passing of duty burden to customers. The Tribunal found the certificate insufficient to support the petitioner's claim.

Issue 4: Rejection of claim for refund based on evidence
The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's claim for refund based on the evidence presented, including invoices and the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. As the conclusions were factual, the Tribunal found no question of law arising and dismissed the petition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to reject the claim for refund was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers, despite the petitioner's arguments and the documents provided.