2006 (9) TMI 16 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise Refund Duty paid under protest Excise duty paid in excess shown in appellant s accounts as receivable from Govt Presumption of unjust enrichment u/s 12B of CEA rebutted by assessee Refund of excess duty not hit by provisions of unjust enrichment - Cash refund of differential duty allowable

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of appellant's name
2. Refund claim rejection for duty paid

Analysis:
1. The application before the Appellate Tribunal was for changing the appellant's name to "M/s. Saralee Household & Bodycare Pvt. Ltd." The application was supported by a Certificate of Incorporation from the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, reflecting the name change. After considering both sides, the Tribunal allowed the application, officially changing the appellant's name in the memorandum of appeal to 'M/s. Saralee Household Bodycare Pvt. Ltd.'

2. The appeal in question pertained to the rejection of a refund claim for the period from 1.3.92 to 12.11.95. The appellants were involved in manufacturing cleaning products and had initially classified their products under SH 3402.90, paying duty at 30%. However, they later claimed classification under SH 3405.40 with a duty rate of 20%. The Commissioner (Appeals) settled the classification dispute in favor of the appellants. Subsequently, a refund claim was filed for the excess duty paid, which was rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal noted that the assessable value and duty paid were separately shown in relevant invoices, leading the department to presume that the duty burden was passed on to buyers. The appellants presented their books of accounts and certificates from their Chartered Accountant to rebut this presumption. Despite the lower authorities not accepting this evidence, the Tribunal found that the documentary evidence successfully rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where a similar Chartered Accountant's certificate was accepted as evidence, leading to a refund. The Tribunal held that the presumption of unjust enrichment was effectively rebutted in this case as well, and thus, the claim for cash refund of the excess Excise Duty was allowed, resulting in the appeal being allowed.

3. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument that price variations during the dispute period automatically indicated the passing on of duty burden to buyers. It was noted that the price increase was reflected in commercial invoices, but the Revenue failed to show that this increase was not mirrored in statutory invoices. The Tribunal emphasized that the lower authorities did not challenge the authenticity of the documentary evidence provided by the appellants, which included Chartered Accountant's certificates and books of accounts. Drawing parallels to a previous case where similar evidence led to a successful rebuttal of unjust enrichment, the Tribunal concluded that the presumption of unjust enrichment was effectively rebutted in this case as well.