2004 (1) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether duty incidence was passed on to customers.
2. Validity of CA certificate as evidence.
3. Interpretation of the Excise Invoices.
4. Application of legal precedents on duty refund cases.

Analysis:
1. The case involved manufacturers of 'Asafoetida' paying duty under protest, showing duty element separately in Central Excise invoices but not in commercial invoices. The CCE (Appeals) found that duty was not passed on to customers based on pricing evidence and CA certificate. Refund was allowed citing Metro Tyres Ltd. case and Infar (India) Ltd. case.

2. The Revenue appealed, arguing that price increase was not solely due to duty, questioning CA certificate's relevance, and disputing the interpretation of ledger accounts and Excise Invoices. They relied on Mafatlal Industries case.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal precedents. It upheld the CCE (Appeals) decision, noting that price remained constant despite duty changes, supporting Infar (India) Ltd. case. The Revenue's arguments were dismissed, emphasizing the Metro Tyres Ltd. case's application and the potential loss to respondents without refunds.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CCE (Appeals) orders, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on the evidence, legal principles, and potential financial impact on the respondents. The duty refund was deemed justified, and the appeal was rejected accordingly.