2017 (5) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - excess duty paid under the provision of Chewing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - denial on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that - when the Appellant has produced their ledger account and they are showing excess duty payment as debts or money receivable from Revenue and this fact has further been supported by the Certificate of the Chartered Accountant, then It seems that there is no question of any further proof required to be submitted by the Appellant - The department fails to prove that said excess duty paid of ₹ 24 lacs was recovered by the assessee from the customers. Thus, the said excess burden of duty was not passed on to the customers by the Appellant - refund allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Chewing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines Rules, 2010.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing chewing tobacco, paid duty under Compound Levy Rules based on the number of packing machines. A duty reduction notification led to an excess payment realization of ?24 lakhs for April 2010. A refund claim was filed and initially granted by the Assistant Commissioner but later rejected by the Commissioner. The main contention was the test of 'no unjust enrichment,' with the appellant arguing the duty was not passed on to customers, supported by ledger entries and a Chartered Accountant certificate. The Revenue argued against refund, emphasizing the 'no unjust enrichment' test non-compliance. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence sufficient, citing the Chartered Accountant certificate as crucial, following precedents like Tirumala Bearings and the Allahabad High Court's decision in CCE v/s Dabur India, where the duty was deemed not passed on to buyers. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Appellant.