2019 (6) TMI 183 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess excise duty - period October, 2002 to March, 2003 - unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - The appellant has not been able to prove that the burden of said duty has not been passed on to the ultimate customers leading to the establishment of unjust enrichment to the appellant. The same is considered as the sufficient ground to hold the appellant to not to be eligible for the refund. The matter may be remanded back again to the original adjudicating authority to take into consideration the relevant evidence including C.A. Certificate - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand for excess Excise Duty.
2. Admissibility of C.A. Certificate as evidence.
3. Unjust enrichment and eligibility for refund.
4. Remand for de-novo adjudication.

Confirmation of Demand for Excess Excise Duty:
The appeal was filed against the confirmation of a demand of &8377; 22,38,028/- along with interest and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant admitted to the payment of excess Excise Duty, but argued that the demand should not have been confirmed. The Department contended that the demand was justified due to unjust enrichment on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was a second round of litigation, with a previous remand order directing a de-novo adjudication. The appellant, engaged in pesticide manufacturing, was alleged to have availed Cenvat Credit without proper documentation, leading to the demand confirmation.

Admissibility of C.A. Certificate as Evidence:
The appellant presented a C.A. Certificate during the appeal, which was not produced before the lower adjudicating authorities. The Tribunal acknowledged the potential relevance of the document as evidence but stated that it could not be considered in the current circumstances. The decision emphasized the importance of submitting all relevant evidence during the adjudication process to support the appellant's case effectively.

Unjust Enrichment and Eligibility for Refund:
Although the appellant admitted to paying excess Excise Duty, they failed to demonstrate that the burden of the duty was not passed on to customers, establishing unjust enrichment. This failure to prove non-passing of the duty burden led to the conclusion that the appellant was not eligible for a refund. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of establishing that the duty burden was not transferred to customers to qualify for a refund.

Remand for De-novo Adjudication:
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for a de-novo adjudication. The order directed a comprehensive consideration of all relevant evidence, including the C.A. Certificate, and emphasized that the previous remand order had not been fully taken into account by the lower authorities. The remand was aimed at ensuring a thorough examination of the issue, including final assessment and refund of excess Excise Duty, to facilitate a well-informed decision-making process.