1996 (1) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim filed by the appellants denied and ordered to be credited towards National Consumer Welfare Fund.
2. Appellants' contention of evidence produced to show burden not passed on.
3. Applicability of amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Interpretation of evidence and burden of proof in refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 66,835.52 after a Tribunal decision in their favor. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice questioning the refund, suggesting it be credited to the National Consumer Welfare Fund. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellants argued that evidence like accounts, affidavits, and a Chartered Accountant's certificate proved the burden was not passed on. They cited a Rajasthan High Court decision to support their claim that unjust enrichment does not apply when a refund results from an appellate order favoring the assessee.

3. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellants failed to prove they did not pass on the burden. It was argued that the amended provisions of Section 11B of the Act applied to the case, as established by legal precedents.

4. The Tribunal examined the legal position on the retrospective application of amended provisions of Section 11B. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, it clarified that the amended provisions applied retrospectively to orders passed by High Courts or Tribunals. The Tribunal noted the evidence presented by the appellants but found it insufficient to prove non-passing of the duty burden. The burden of proof lay on the claimant to establish non-passing of duty, which the appellants failed to do conclusively. The absence of assessable values in documents and cessation of production further weakened their case. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision to credit the refund amount to the National Consumer Welfare Fund, as per Section 12C of the Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the importance of meeting the burden of proof in refund claims and the retrospective application of relevant legal provisions.