2012 (11) TMI 362 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim rejected - presumption of unjust enrichment - Held that - As decided in GAIL India Ltd., Vs. CCE, Gwalior 2010 (10) TMI 445 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI Chartered Accountant s certification that books of accounts disclose certain amount to be outstanding and recoverable is different from certifying the fact of non-collection of duty from the buyers and such a certificate would be only a corroborative piece of evidence but it cannot itself be a main piece of evidence regarding the fact which is required to be proved by the party. As in the present case the amount has not been shown as receivables in the books of accounts but has been treated as expenses in the balance sheet. No other evidence also appears to have been adduced by the appellant in support of the claim that the amount has not been recovered from the buyers. In the absence of such an evidence, the claim of the appellant that he has crossed the bar of unjust enrichment cannot be sustained.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of moulds and dies, filed a refund claim which was rejected due to unjust enrichment. The original adjudicating authority noted that the appellant had shown the refund amount as expenses in their balance sheet for a specific year and had failed to prove that they would not be unjustly enriched if the claim was sanctioned. The appellant's appeal to the lower appellate authority was also dismissed.

The appellant argued that a Chartered Accountant's certificate certified that they had borne the duty incidence claimed for refund, and since the amount was included in the balance sheet as expenses, it formed part of the profit and loss account, not the cost recovered from customers.

The Revenue, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, contended that a Chartered Accountant's certificate alone was insufficient to prove unjust enrichment, emphasizing the need for entries in the books of accounts showing the outstanding amount from the Revenue department.

The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving no unjust enrichment lies with the claimant. The appellant failed to provide evidence that the duty incidence had not been passed on to buyers. The Tribunal cited a previous case where a Chartered Accountant's certificate was deemed insufficient to prove non-collection of duty from buyers. As the refund amount was treated as expenses in the balance sheet and not shown as receivables in the books of accounts, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not met the burden of proof for unjust enrichment.

Based on the lack of evidence supporting the claim and the treatment of the refund amount as expenses, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.