1995 (12) TMI 118 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the question of unjust enrichment arises when the burden is on the Appellant to prove that duty incidence has not been passed on under Sections 11B and 12B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944?
2. Whether reliance on judicial pronouncements for refund of duty paid on packing paper used captively for Central Excise duty is legally correct?

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered a case where refund of duty paid on packing paper used captively was denied based on the contention that the duty had been passed on to customers. The Tribunal disagreed, citing subsequent judgments of various High Courts and the West Regional Bench. It was held that in cases of captive use of goods, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed lower authorities to provide consequential relief to the Appellants promptly.

2. The Collector raised two questions challenging the Tribunal's decision. Firstly, it was argued that the burden of proving duty incidence not passed on under Section 11B does not negate the question of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal disagreed, pointing out that the presumption under Section 12B regarding passing on duty burden to buyers does not apply when the goods sold are different from the goods subject to duty. The Tribunal referenced the Solar Pesticides case and distinguished it, stating that the unjust enrichment issue arises when duty-paid goods are sold as is, not after processing. The Tribunal rejected the Collector's arguments, stating that various High Court judgments, including one relying on a Supreme Court case, had already settled the matter. Consequently, the Reference Application was dismissed.

3. Additionally, the Stay Petition filed by the Revenue was also rejected in light of the dismissal of the Reference Application. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal principles surrounding unjust enrichment in cases of captive use of goods and the application of Section 12B presumption in the context of duty incidence passing on to buyers. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal precedent and established interpretations in resolving such disputes in Central Excise matters.