2006 (4) TMI 145 - HC - Central Excise

Application for refund of excise duty - Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - We do not find any substantial question of law arising in the present case. Decision of the Tribunal is in accordance with law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal 1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT and also Section 11B of the Act. The order of remand did not debar the Assistant Commissioner from looking into the provisions of Section 11B of the Act or drawing an inference that the element of duty had been passed on. Therefore, the contention of the respondent has to be rejected. Thus, no substantial question of law arises - Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for refund of excise duty paid; Burden of duty passed on to customers; Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excies and Salt Act, 1944; Tribunal's decision contrary to earlier view; Compliance with remand order; Binding effect of Supreme Court judgments; Principle of res judicata in legal proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant applied for a refund of excise duty paid from April 1990 to June 1990, claiming that the product was cleared at a higher duty than specified. The refund was denied as the duty was already recovered from customers. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification, citing the Madras High Court judgment in Dollar Company, Madras v. Govt. of India,1986. The Assistant Commissioner noted no increase in selling price, implying the duty burden was passed on, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India.

2. The Tribunal affirmed the Assistant Commissioner's decision, considering the duty burden passed on even if prices remained the same or decreased. The Supreme Court's observations in Mafatlal were pivotal. The appellant raised a legal question on the Tribunal's change in view post-remand, citing precedents like Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of C.Ex., which were distinguished due to the specific circumstances.

3. The Court found no substantial legal question, upholding the Tribunal's decision based on Mafatlal and Section 11B of the Act. The Court clarified that the remand order did not restrict the Assistant Commissioner from considering Section 11B or inferring the duty pass-on. Precedents like M/s. Shenoy & Co. and others v. Commercial Tax Officer and Director of Settlements AP and others v. M.R. Apparao were cited to emphasize the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments.

4. The Court dismissed the appeal, noting the irrelevance of the appellant's arguments against the Tribunal's decision. The judgment highlighted the non-binding nature of remand findings on higher courts, reinforcing the Tribunal's authority in this case. The legal principle of res judicata was reaffirmed, emphasizing the supremacy of Supreme Court rulings and the uniform application of law. The appeal was conclusively rejected based on the established legal framework and precedents cited.