2005 (8) TMI 231 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund admissibility based on duty passing at product clearance.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of a refund. The appellant-Commissioner argued that even if Credit Notes were issued later on, the refund should not be granted as the duty was considered passed at the time of product clearance. On the other hand, the respondent-company contended that the amount paid at the time of clearance did not represent excise duty, and they provided evidence to support this claim. The respondent filed a Certificate from a Chartered Accountant and a letter from the buyer confirming that no excise duty was paid to the respondent. The original authority rejected the refund application based on the lack of evidence showing that the excise duty was not collected from the buyer. The Commissioner (Appeals) found in favor of the respondent, noting the evidence provided, including the Certificate and the buyer's letter.

The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the Certificate from the Chartered Accountant, which confirmed that the amount deposited was not recovered from the buyer. Additionally, the consignee of the goods certified that the duty incidence was not passed on to them. The Commissioner found merit in the appellant's case, ruling that the refund was admissible and not subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The buyer's confirmation that no excise duty was paid to the respondent, along with the independent Chartered Accountant's certification, further supported the Commissioner's decision. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision to allow the refund was upheld, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of providing substantial evidence to support claims of duty non-passing in refund cases. The reliance on Certificates from Chartered Accountants and confirmations from buyers played a crucial role in determining the admissibility of the refund, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.