2006 (2) TMI 31 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Unjust enrichment C.A. certificate produced evidence that sale of goods was less than cost price and respondent has not passed burden of duty to their customers - Refund

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on Chartered Accountant's certificate.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal allowing the respondent's appeal on the rejection of a refund claim. The respondent had filed a refund claim for seven Bills of Entries, which were initially credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the lack of evidence regarding the non-passing of duty incidence. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority by the Tribunal in a previous order to consider any new evidence. However, the authority did not accept the Chartered Accountant's certificate provided by the respondent and credited the amount back to the fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal and set aside the original order, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The Department argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by solely relying on the Chartered Accountant's certificate without considering the requirement for the respondent to produce invoices and supplementary documents to prove the non-passing of duty incidence. The Department cited relevant case laws to support its position. However, upon review, it was found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had thoroughly examined the evidence presented by the respondent. The Commissioner's detailed analysis of the Chartered Accountant's certificate revealed that the goods were sold below cost price, indicating that the duty incidence was not passed on. The Commissioner's decision was based on both the certificate and the attached evidence, demonstrating a comprehensive evaluation of the situation.

Moreover, the Chartered Accountant's certificate explicitly stated that the excess duty had not been passed on to consumers after verifying all relevant documents and information. This clear certification distinguished the present case from previous decisions where the certificates were not accepted due to insufficient examination of cost data and documents. The certificate's thorough verification process and the absence of evidence suggesting distress sale further supported the conclusion that duty incidence was not transferred to customers.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, emphasizing the Commissioner's well-founded decision considering the Chartered Accountant's certificate, supporting evidence, and the absence of contradictory proof. The clear and detailed analysis conducted by the Commissioner (Appeals) led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the non-passing of duty incidence by the respondent.