2004 (9) TMI 552 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims rejection based on passing of duty to ultimate buyers.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals filed by the Revenue against the rejection of refund claims of the respondents. The adjudicating authority initially allowed the refund claim but directed the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the alleged passing of duty incidence to the ultimate buyers. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision by determining that the duty incidence was not passed on by the respondents to the ultimate consumers.

Upon review, it was noted that the respondents sold the goods at a lower price than the one on which duty was paid while clearing the goods from the factory. The department had provisionally assessed the goods in the financial year 2001-2002, and a refund of Rs. 8,18,421.28 was found due to the respondents. Despite the adjudicating authority's order to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, as there was no concrete evidence to prove the passing of duty incidence to the buyers by the respondents.

The respondents issued credit notes to the buyers after working out discounts on the actual turnover, and the accuracy of these notes was not contested by the department. Citing legal precedents such as CCE, Chennai v. Addison & Co. Ltd. and CCE, Delhi v. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd., it was established that in similar circumstances, where duty incidence was not passed on to the ultimate consumers, refunds were permissible. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, concluding that the case of the respondents aligned with the legal principles established in the aforementioned cases.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the refund claims of the respondents.