1993 (2) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves determining the eligibility of the appellants for refund of duty under Sec. 11C of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 based on the passing on of duty incidence to customers and the issuance of credit notes.

Issue 1: Refund Claims and Duty Classification
The appellants filed refund claims based on the reclassification of man-made fabrics under Heading 55.12 CETA through the Finance Bill, 1986. The dispute arose regarding the duty levied and subsequent amendments to the Bill affecting duty rates. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims initially, citing Sec. 11C provisions. The Collector (Appeals) remanded the cases for further consideration, leading to conflicting decisions on whether duty incidence had been passed on to customers.

Issue 2: Compliance with Sec. 11C(2)
The appellants argued that they fulfilled the conditions for exemption under Sec. 11C(2) by issuing credit notes to customers, thus bearing the duty incidence themselves. The Assistant Collector approved the refund claims based on this argument. However, the Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating that duty had been collected from customers at the time of clearance, and issuing credit notes did not absolve the duty incidence passing on.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Sec. 11C(2)
The judgment analyzed the applicability of Sec. 11C(2) in the context of refund claims made before the issuance of Notification 35/88 under Sec. 11C. It emphasized that the requirement to prove non-passing of duty incidence to any other person within six months of the notification was not met by the appellants. Despite issuing credit notes post-amendment to Sec. 11C, the duty incidence had already been transferred to customers at the time of clearance, rendering the refund claims ineligible.

In conclusion, the judgment rejected the appeals, affirming that the appellants did not satisfy the conditions of Sec. 11C(2) for refund claims, as duty incidence had been passed on to customers prior to the issuance of relevant notifications and subsequent issuance of credit notes did not alter this fact. The interpretation of the law precluded refund eligibility in such circumstances, as clarified by the Collector (Appeals) decision.