2007 (3) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

In light of earlier decision, held that Chartered Accountant certificate certifying that element of duty has not been passed on to customer must be accepted refund allowed Comm(A) did not deliberately follow cited judgment despite having noted the same & not justified in rejecting refund

Summary

Issues:
- Unjust enrichment in refund cases

Analysis:
The case involved appeals arising from Orders-in-Appeal where the refund was granted but the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the money to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns. The appellants argued that they had not passed on the excess duty amount to customers and provided a Chartered Accountant's Certificate to support their claim. The appellants relied on previous Tribunal rulings and a Board's Circular, which were not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to the refund despite the Commissioner's decision to deposit the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Upon hearing both sides and examining relevant judgments, the Tribunal found that when a Chartered Accountant certifies that the duty element has not been passed on to customers, it should be accepted. The Tribunal referred to previous cases where similar findings were made based on evidence produced. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the refund, criticizing the Commissioner (Appeals) for not following established judgments and directing the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund despite noting the relevant particulars in the order. The Tribunal held that the appellants should receive the refund based on the evidence presented, and therefore allowed the appeals with consequential relief.