2018 (4) TMI 1031 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - duty paid under protest - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - whether the appellant was entitled to refund of excise duty paid from 1st April 1989 to the end of February 1994? Held that - No doubt if the appellant claims refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act the burden to establish such claim shall be upon the appellant who has to lead evidence to the satisfaction of the authorities concern for refund of the amount - However If the authority feels that certain relevant material can be called from the assessee which shall have the bearing on the controversy involved such an opportunity has to be provided to the assessee otherwise the order may suffer from the breach of principles of natural justice The matter is required to be remanded to the Joint Commissioner Central Excise to decide the controversy afresh by permitting the assessee to produce on record the other documents having bearing on the issue involved in the present case by setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
Challenge to final order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Challenge to order of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise; Classification of snuff of tobacco under different entries; Entitlement to refund of excise duty paid; Burden of proof on appellant for refund claim; Application of legal principles in determining duty pass-on to consumers; Natural justice principles in assessment process.

Classification of Snuff of Tobacco:
The judgment dealt with the classification of snuff of tobacco under different entries of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The dispute arose regarding the classification of the appellant's product under Entry No. 2404.50 or 2404.60 post-April 1989. Previous legal proceedings up to the Apex Court had concluded that the product fell under Entry No. 2404.60, attracting a 10% duty. The appellant claimed a refund for the excess duty paid from April 1989 to February 1994, which was undisputedly classified under Entry No. 2404.60. The appellant's claim was based on the finality of the previous decision up to the Apex Court.

Entitlement to Refund of Excise Duty Paid:
The main issue revolved around the appellant's entitlement to a refund of excise duty paid from April 1989 to February 1994. The appellant contended that the duty paid during this period was not passed on to consumers. The appellant provided evidence such as invoices, balance sheets, and information from comparable manufacturers to support the claim. The Joint Commissioner partially accepted the claim, which was later rejected by the Commissioner, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, denying the refund claim.

Burden of Proof for Refund Claim:
The judgment discussed the burden of proof on the appellant to establish the claim for a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It was emphasized that the appellant must provide evidence to satisfy the authorities regarding the refund claim. The authorities needed to objectively assess the material presented and could request additional relevant documents from the appellant if necessary. Failure to provide such an opportunity could lead to a breach of natural justice principles.

Application of Legal Principles - Duty Pass-On:
The judgment analyzed the application of legal principles concerning the pass-on of duty to consumers. The appellant argued that there was no increase in the maximum retail price pre and post-April 1989, indicating that the duty was not passed on. Legal precedents were cited to support the appellant's position, highlighting the need to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the appellant, but the authorities should ensure a fair assessment and consider all relevant factors.

Natural Justice Principles in Assessment Process:
The judgment underscored the importance of natural justice principles in the assessment process. It was noted that the authorities must provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to present relevant material and documents. The court directed a remand to the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, to allow the appellant to produce additional documents for a fresh assessment. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a reevaluation based on the additional evidence.

In conclusion, the judgment allowed the writ petition, quashed previous orders, and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment by the Joint Commissioner. The appellant was granted the opportunity to present further evidence regarding the duty pass-on to consumers. The decision highlighted the importance of a fair assessment process, burden of proof on the appellant, and adherence to natural justice principles in such matters.

← Previous Next →