2000 (2) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against order granting refund under Sec. 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Burden of proof on passing incidence of duty to customers.

Summary:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal granting a refund to the respondents under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondents proved that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the customers, making the refund admissible to the appellants. The Revenue contended that the selling price remaining the same does not prove that higher duty was not charged, as the excise duty component can be increased by reducing profit margin in a competitive market. The respondents, supported by sale invoices and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, argued that the price charged remained uniform, indicating that duty incidence was not passed on. The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, upheld the respondents' position, stating that invoices showing composite price without duty indicated separately suffice to prove non-passing of duty to customers.

In the present case, the main issue was whether the respondents had proven that the duty incidence was not transferred to the customers. The Tribunal, based on precedents, found that the invoices showing composite prices without separate duty indication were adequate evidence that duty had not been passed on. Citing previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the order granting the refund to the appellants.