1996 (8) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for Central Excise duty, Consumer Welfare Fund credit, Burden of duty passed on, Public notice requirement under Section 11D(2) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellants filed refund claims for Central Excise duty following finalization of price lists and RT 12 returns for cosmetics. They sold products through depots at various locations, pricing them according to the price list. Show cause notices were issued questioning the refund, suggesting crediting it to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Sections 11B and 11D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner directed the refund amount to the fund, leading to appeals by the appellants, which were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant's counsel argued that the refund was based on post-manufacturing expenses borne by the appellant, not those collected from buyers. They contended that the duty was included in the price list, and no separate duty calculation was done, challenging the lower authorities' findings. Additionally, they highlighted the lack of a public notice by the Assistant Commissioner before crediting the amount to the fund, citing Section 11D(2) of the Act.

The department's representative argued that the duty burden was transferred to dealers by the appellant, negating any entitlement to a refund. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's claim regarding the absence of a public notice did not hold as the burden had been passed on to consumers. Citing a Supreme Court case, it emphasized that where duty incidence is passed on, no refund is due based on unjust enrichment principles.

The Tribunal found that the burden of duty had indeed been shifted to dealers by the appellant, who failed to demonstrate otherwise. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as the appellant could not prove that the duty burden had not been transferred to any other party. The judgment underscored that in such circumstances, the appeals lacked merit, leading to their dismissal.