2005 (8) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of refund claim based on unjust enrichment.

Summary:
The appeal dealt with the denial of a refund claim by both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that although the goods were initially sold with the duty included in the sale price, a credit note for the duty was later issued to the purchaser, which they claimed as evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on. The case involved an exemption in duty under Notification No. 2/2001-C.E. for supplying goods to earthquake victims in Gujarat, subject to specific conditions.

The appellant contended that all conditions were met, supported by a certificate from the District Collector confirming the supply of goods to a Society aiding earthquake victims. Reference was made to a decision in the case of M/s. Addison & Co. v. CCE, Madras, where it was held that the manufacturer is not required to prove the ultimate consumer or whether the duty burden was borne by them. The appellant sold goods to a Society, issued a credit note for duty, and argued that this action prevented the passing of duty incidence to consumers.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments, finding no unjust enrichment and allowing the refund claim. It was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the credit notes provided by the appellant and wrongly demanded proof of purchase orders and cheque details for duty payment verification. The Tribunal emphasized that the credit notes were sufficient evidence and referenced a relevant decision to support the appellant's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the refund claim was sanctioned.