2000 (7) TMI 742 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of duty paid on bottles manufactured and transferred to own units, unjust enrichment, applicability of legal provision on captively consumed goods, requirement under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Refund of duty paid on bottles manufactured and transferred to own units:
The case involved a limited company manufacturing liquor bottles and liquor, with bottles transferred to units producing liquor for packing. The question was the refund of duty paid on bottles transferred to the company's own units. The company claimed a refund of about Rs. 1.4 lakhs, arguing that the duty amount attributable to the value of gunny bags used for packing should not be included in the assessable value of the bottles. The central excise authorities rejected the claim citing unjust enrichment, as the duty amount might have been passed on. The company contended that since the glass bottles were captively consumed, unjust enrichment did not apply.

Unjust enrichment and legal provision applicability:
The company's counsel referred to the balance sheet and auditor's report, highlighting that the cost of gunny bags was not passed on to the liquor manufacturing unit. They argued that since the cost of gunny bags was not passed on, the excise duty related to them also was not passed on. However, the Departmental Representative (DR) contended that whether the company charged the buying unit for the gunny bags was irrelevant. The crucial point was to demonstrate that the excise duty linked to the value of glass bottles was not passed on. The DR referenced a Supreme Court case stating that the legal provision on unjust enrichment applied to captively consumed goods as well.

Requirement under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act:
The judgment highlighted the necessity under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for a party seeking a refund to prove that the duty was not passed on to the buyer. It was noted that the valuation of glass bottles for assessing excise duty included the cost of gunny bags used for packing. The company failed to provide evidence showing that the duty amount related to the price of gunny bags was not passed on to the liquor unit during pricing. The auditor's note and schedule indicated that the cost of gunny bags was not passed on to the liquor units, but this did not address the duty amount specifically. Consequently, the company could not establish that the claimed refund of excise duty had not been passed on, leading to the rejection of the appeal.