2017 (12) TMI 758 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - unjust enrichment - denial on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer - Held that - the appellant by way of documentary evidence on record has proved that incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer - at the end of customer also there has been verification by the Superintendent of Central Excise and he has issued a certificate stating that they have taken credit of only ₹ 27,118/- which corresponds to the excise duty payable had there been no error in computation - the presumption of unjust enrichment stands rebutted by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim for excess duty paid, unjust enrichment, computation error in invoices, documentary evidence to prove non-passing of duty incidence to buyer.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, filed a refund claim for excess duty paid on one invoice. The lower authority sanctioned the refund but credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund, citing that the duty burden was passed on to the buyer. The appellant contended that they collected only the required amount from the buyer, supported by a certificate from the buyer's jurisdictional Superintendent. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order did not consider their submissions or the documents produced. They relied on a certificate from the buyer's Superintendent and a decision in a similar case to rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment. The appellant presented evidence to show that the excess duty was not passed on to the buyer, including the timing of credit notes issuance and payment by the customer. They referenced several decisions to support their case.

The AR maintained that the appellant's invoices included the excess duty paid, indicating that the customer paid the extra duty to the appellant. The AR highlighted that the credit notes issued did not reflect the excise duty, benefiting the appellant.

Upon review, the Tribunal found a computational error in the invoices resulting in higher duty payment. The refund was initially rejected due to the failure to prove non-passing of duty burden to the buyer. However, the appellant's documentary evidence, supported by certificates from both the buyer and the buyer's Superintendent, sufficiently rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law and allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authority's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (A)'s decision, emphasizing the appellant's successful rebuttal of unjust enrichment through documentary evidence and certificates from both the buyer and the buyer's Superintendent.