2005 (2) TMI 178 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of provisions relating to unjust enrichment.
2. Passing on of the duty liability to buyers.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of provisions relating to unjust enrichment
The appellant, a manufacturer of photocopiers, filed refund applications during the period of 1987-91, claiming higher values in provisionally assessed photocopiers. The Tribunal, in Final Order No. 116 of 2001-A, directed a deduction of 28% from the retail price for assessing the photocopiers. However, the appellant's refund claim was rejected post-amendment of Rule 9B in 1999, citing unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner upheld the rejection, emphasizing the passing on of duty to buyers. The appellant contended that the pre-amendment status exempted them from unjust enrichment. Referring to legal precedents, the appellant argued that the amounts were not collected from buyers, supported by the Balance Sheet and a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal noted that the refund stemmed from the appeal decision, falling under unjust enrichment, and remanded the case for further examination.

Issue 2: Passing on of the duty liability to buyers
The appellant claimed that the duty amount had not been passed on to buyers, as evidenced by the Balance Sheet showing amounts as "claims recoverable" and a Chartered Accountant's certificate confirming non-passing of duty. The appellant sought to provide additional evidence on pricing to support their case. The SDR argued that the appellant failed to prove the non-burden of higher duty on buyers. The Tribunal found the Chartered Accountant's certificate insufficient, lacking details on pricing and recovery through sales. As the appellant aimed to present more evidence, the case was remanded to the original authority for further evaluation on whether the duty amounts were passed on to buyers.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the applicability of unjust enrichment post-amendment, the burden of proof on passing duty to buyers, and the need for additional evidence to ascertain non-passing of duty amounts. The case was remanded for a detailed assessment, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims and providing comprehensive evidence in matters of duty liability and unjust enrichment.