1996 (12) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
The appeal concerns the respondent's eligibility for a refund under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944, based on the abatement of certain elements in the assessable value.

Eligibility for Refund:
The original authority allowed the refund claim after considering the abatements as allowable, in accordance with Section 11B relating to unjust enrichment. The authority noted that the buyer's turnover deduction was known, as the assessee had either included it in the invoice or passed it on through credit notes, thus establishing no unjust enrichment.

Contentions and Review:
The Commissioner reviewed the original authority's order, challenging the refund eligibility under Sections 11B and 11D, emphasizing that duty incidence was not borne by the manufacturer. The Assistant Collector's argument of suo motu refund was deemed invalid under Section 11D.

Grounds of Appeal:
The Revenue appealed, arguing that the duty burden had not reached the ultimate consumers, leading to unjust enrichment as per Section 11B(2)(d) and Section 12B. They contended that the benefit must be passed on to the ultimate buyer to avoid unjust enrichment.

Legal Provisions and Precedents:
Section 35E empowers the Collector of Central Excise to review orders, distinct from Section 11A. Refunds under valid orders are not erroneous and cannot be recovered under Section 11A. The law prohibits officers from reviewing their own orders, as it would contravene the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944.

Refund Entitlement Criteria:
The amended Section 11B specifies that refunds are granted if duty burden is not passed on to buyers. If duty is passed on, the buyer is entitled to the refund. The event triggering refund is the payment of duty at clearance, and subsequent transactions like issuing credit notes do not affect refund eligibility.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that if the duty burden is passed on, the buyer becomes eligible for the refund. As the appellants had passed on the duty burden, they were not entitled to the refund. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed, permitting necessary follow-up action to be taken.