2017 (3) TMI 553 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that - the issue of credit notes is not sufficient to discharge the burden of unjust enrichment - rejection of refund claim upheld. Finalization of provisional assessment - refund claim - Held that - the amount of bonus discount tallies with the amount shown in sales/production orders - in few cases the credit notes have been issued before the issue of invoices - there can be grounds of allowing the deduction and not of disallowing the deduction. Nevertheless it is a fact that only sample data has been examined and not complete data - matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to examine the data of entire period and come to a conclusion regarding finalization of assessment - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims on the grounds of unjust enrichment and merits.
2. Finalization of provisional assessment and rejection of refund claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Refund Claims on Grounds of Unjust Enrichment and Merits:

The appellant, M/s. Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd., filed thirty appeals against the rejection of refund claims on the grounds of unjust enrichment and merits. The appellant argued that they had paid excess duty during January 2001 to March 2002 due to invoices issued without considering known quantity discounts. These discounts were passed to customers through credit notes after clearance, but were known to both buyer and seller beforehand. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims, stating that the sales/production order was the final contracted price and subsequent reductions were not acceptable. The appellant contended that the duty was wrongly paid without considering quantity discounts and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bombay Tyre International (P) Ltd. and a CBEC Circular clarifying that duty is chargeable on the net price paid or payable, excluding actual discounts.

The Tribunal noted that the period in dispute was from January 2001 to May 2003, with show-cause notices issued from 03/05/2002 to 30/04/2003. The Tribunal found that the continued payment of duty without considering the discounts indicated that it was not a mistake but a conscious decision. The appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Addison & Co. Ltd. was examined, and it was concluded that the issue of credit notes was not sufficient to discharge the burden of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of refund claims on merits and on the ground of unjust enrichment, dismissing the appeals.

2. Finalization of Provisional Assessment and Rejection of Refund Claim:

In Appeal No. E/2597/06, the issue pertained to the finalization of provisional assessment and rejection of refund claim for the period April 2002 to December 2003. The provisional assessment was effective from 01/04/2002, but the appellant only sought provisional assessment from 01/05/2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the required documents, such as credit notes, purchase orders, and invoices, were not submitted despite repeated reminders. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original, which disallowed the discounts due to lack of supporting documents and noted that the amount shown in purchase orders tallied with sales/production orders, indicating no difference in price.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly upheld the finalization of provisional assessment. However, the Tribunal noted that only sample data was examined and not the complete data. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to examine the data for the entire period and conclude the finalization of assessment. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the thirty appeals related to refund claims on the grounds of unjust enrichment and merits, upholding the rejection of refund claims. In the appeal concerning the finalization of provisional assessment, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a comprehensive examination of the data.

← Previous Next →