2022 (11) TMI 98 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Excise duty paid mistakenly - refund rejected on the ground of principles of unjust enrichment - it is alleged that appellant have passed on the duty incidence to the buyer - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the appellant has mentioned the duty element in the invoices issued to the buyers. The presumption envisaged in section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 then applies and the burden rests upon the appellant to rebut this presumption. In para 12 of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed that though the appellants produced Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant s certificate, these are not certificates issued by their statutory auditors. Further, it is also not stated in the certificates that they have scrutinized financial statements of the appellant. Even after remand, the appellant has not been able to produce necessary documents to substantiate that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers of the goods. The rejection of refund claim is legal and proper - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing suture needles and micro surgical blades, faced a dispute over the classification of suture needles, ultimately settled under Chapter Heading 90 of CETA, 1985, attracting nil rate of duty. Despite this, the appellant continued to pay duty until December 12, 2005, when they informed the jurisdictional officer of the nil duty rate. A refund claim for mistakenly paid duty was filed, contested on grounds of unjust enrichment. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for review, resulting in another rejection upheld by the Tribunal.

The appellant argued against unjust enrichment, claiming the duty element was absorbed in their cost structure, not passed on to buyers, and hence, no unjust enrichment occurred. However, the AR contended that the duty was presumed to be passed on to buyers unless proven otherwise. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the appellant's evidence insufficient, lacking scrutiny by statutory auditors and financial record examination. Despite producing certificates from Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant, the appellant failed to substantiate non-passing of duty incidence to buyers.

The central issue revolved around whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence from the appellant to disprove the presumption of duty passing on to buyers. Despite the appellant's arguments, including absorption in cost structure and constant sale price, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the evidence insufficient. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, deeming it legally justified and dismissing the appeal for lacking merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence to counter the presumption of duty passing on to buyers. The judgment highlighted the necessity for conclusive documentation to substantiate claims of non-passing of duty incidence and reiterated the legal principle of unjust enrichment in excise duty matters.