9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 674 - AT - Central ExciseRefund of deposit made during investigation and penalty paid in compliance to Order-in-Original - refund was allowed but amount was not paid to the Appellant as being directed to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Funds - rejection of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - This Provision has not stated anywhere that any document is required to be produced before the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of the Central Excise to pass the burden of unjust enrichment but to his satisfaction he call for and examine documents to arrive at a finding that such incident of duty was not passed on to any other person. Therefore, the general perception that burden of proof is on the assesse to establish that incidence of duty was not passed on to any other person is true to the extent that and in the case where allegation is made concerning passing of such duty incidence to any other persons, then only he would be in a position to falsify the same through related documents. For example, when a person is accused of committing murder of another person Named B then at least B should have been dead so as to allege A of culpable homicide. Therefore, the finding of the Refund Sanctioning Authority at para 21 of the Order-in- Original that Appellant failed to produced documentary proof for not having passed on the incidence of duty of Excise to any other person, is ill founded till there is an allegation based on record that duty has/might have passed to another person or any other person. It would also be erroneous on the part of Commissioner (Appeals) to refer to Para 17 of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SOLAR PESTICIDE PVT. LTD. 2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT where there is only reference of indirect passing of duty incidence and not burden of proof. Further straight away arriving at a conclusion that because of the amount fact that the amount is shown in the Balance Sheet as Excise Duty paid, incidence of duty was transferred and thereby Appellant would be unjustly enriched if amount is refunded to him/it is not sustainable in law and facts. Appellant is entitled to get refund of Rs.22,78,119/-, with applicable interest as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and the Respondent-Department is directed to pay the same within three months of receipt of this order - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
The judgment involves the rejection of a refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment by the Adjudicating Authority, approved by the Commissioner (Appeals), which is challenged by the Appellant. Issue 1: Refund Rejection on Ground of Unjust Enrichment The Appellant's refund claim of Rs.22,78,119/- was rejected as the amount was directed to be paid to the Consumer Welfare Funds due to the failure to discharge the burden of unjust enrichment. The Appellant had succeeded in a previous appeal before the CESTAT, which challenged the legality of the order setting aside the demand related to inadmissible credit. Issue 2: Arguments and Judicial Decisions Both sides presented arguments citing various judicial decisions. The Appellant's Counsel referred to a Tribunal decision emphasizing the revenue's obligation to refund the amount deposited during investigation after an appeal is allowed. The Respondent's Authorized Representative relied on several Tribunal decisions to argue that showing an amount in the Profit & Loss account as expenditure implies passing on the duty incidence, invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Issue 3: Accounting Principles and Unjust Enrichment The Adjudicating Authorities based their decision on the absence of the amount shown as 'recoverable' in the financial statements. The Appellant's Counsel highlighted the Accounting Standards regarding contingent assets and liabilities, emphasizing that the mere appearance of an amount as 'receivable' or 'expenditure' does not automatically establish unjust enrichment. Issue 4: Provision of Unjust Enrichment The judgment discussed the provisions of unjust enrichment under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the Assessee to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to any other person. The judgment critiqued the Refund Sanctioning Authority's finding of the Appellant's failure to provide documentary proof as unfounded. Judgment and Conclusion The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and directing the Respondent-Department to refund Rs.22,78,119/- to the Appellant with applicable interest within three months. The judgment emphasized the need for proper examination of financial statements and documentary evidence to establish unjust enrichment, beyond mere accounting entries. (Order pronounced in the open court on 14. 12. 2023)
|
