1995 (3) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for payment under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting their claim for payment under Section 11B due to unjust enrichment. The appellant's counsel argued that they had submitted affidavits from customers stating they had not paid any duty to the appellant. However, when questioned about documentary evidence to prove the duty was not included in the amounts received, the appellant failed to provide any records or satisfactory explanation. The burden of proof was on the appellant to show that duty had not been passed on to customers, but they could not substantiate their claim.

The respondent's representative contended that the original authority had conducted fair inquiries with customers to verify the appellant's claim of non-payment of duty. The appellant had raised bills including duty amounts but failed to produce any records to support their assertion. The respondent argued that the appellant's plea lacked supporting evidence and should not be accepted.

Upon considering both arguments, the judge noted that the appellant had only submitted copies of affidavits from customers as evidence. However, no documentary evidence or accounts were provided to establish that duty had not been passed on to customers. The judge emphasized that under Section 11B, it was the appellant's responsibility to prove the non-passing of duty with credible evidence. Since no substantial evidence was presented, and bills including duty were raised without explanation, the judge concluded that the appellant's plea lacked support. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.