2017 (9) TMI 350 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - assessee-Appellants had paid the duty on the said items, but later gave discount to the customers - denial of refund on the ground that the assessee-Appellants had failed to establish and prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyers - Held that - the principle of unjust enrichment is applicable in the instant case under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is evident from the record that the assessee-Appellants had failed to submit such documentary evidence on record with the refund claims to establish that the duty incidence claims for refund has not been passed on to the buyers - the assessee-Appellants have not submitted the relevant documents pertaining to the unjust enrichment - the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable in the instant case - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on unjust enrichment principle under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to appeals filed against orders denying refund claims by the assessee-Appellants for the period of April 2009 to June 2010. The Appellants, engaged in manufacturing steel products attracting excise duty, initially paid duty but later provided discounts to customers, leading to the refund claims. The Appellants contended that credit notes were issued subsequently but not produced before the authorities. The Appellants relied on case laws to support their claim, requesting the refund. On the contrary, the Department justified the denial, citing the principle of unjust enrichment as per the Supreme Court's ruling in a specific case. The Department argued that the burden of proof lies with the claimant to demonstrate that duty incidence was not passed on to buyers to avoid unjust enrichment.

The Tribunal examined the submissions from both sides and found that the refund claims were rejected by the lower authorities due to the Appellants' failure to prove that duty incidence was not passed on to buyers, invoking the bar of unjust enrichment. It was noted that the Appellants did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the duty incidence claims for refund were not transferred to customers. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of submitting relevant documents to prove unjust enrichment as required by the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner's decision was deemed reasonable as the Appellants did not present proof of non-passage of duty to customers.

The Tribunal reiterated that as per the Central Excise Act, refunds are granted only if duty incidence was not transferred to buyers. The burden of proof rests with the claimant to show non-passage of tax incidence to buyers. The Tribunal concluded that the documents submitted by the Appellants did not fulfill the unjust enrichment clause requirements, as they failed to establish that the duty incidence claimed for refund was not passed on to buyers. Consequently, the bar of unjust enrichment was deemed applicable in this case, leading to the dismissal of all appeals by the Appellants. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' orders based on the reasons provided therein, emphasizing the importance of complying with the provisions related to unjust enrichment in refund claims.