2024 (1) TMI 819 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess central excise duty paid - Principles of unjust enrichment - non-production of any evidence before the Central Excise authority to substantiate the claim that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers - HELD THAT - From the findings recorded by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, it is found that the Appellant has not produced any other evidence other than CA s Certificate to substantiate the claim of non-applicability of unjust enrichment in this case. The CA Certificate alone is not sufficient to conclude that 'unjust enrichment' is applicable in this case or not. This view has been held in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) CUSTOM HOUSE, VERSUS 1. M/S. BPL LTD., 2. CUSTOMS EXCISE SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2010 (7) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT it was held that Inasmuch as the Tribunal has merely relied upon the certificate of the Chartered Accountant and in order to give sufficient opportunity to first respondent while answering the question of law in favour of the revenue, the order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of the appeal filed before it. The first respondent is permitted to furnish any other substantial evidence in support of his claim for refund. There are no reason to differ with the above findings in the impugned order to uphold the rejection of the refund claim. Accordingly, the Appellant is not eligible for the refund claim and the same has been rightly rejected in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of excess central excise duty paid.

Summary:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of CGST, Howrah, regarding the refund of excess central excise duty paid. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order rejecting the refund, citing the ground of 'unjust enrichment'. The Appellant cleared goods to a related entity for captive consumption in the manufacture of finished goods. The issue revolved around providing evidence to show that unjust enrichment did not apply in this case. The Appellant had initially cleared goods at an adhoc assessable value, later finalized as per CAS-4 Certificate, revealing excess duty payment. Despite being asked to provide evidence against unjust enrichment, the Appellant failed to do so. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized the need for evidence to prove that the duty burden was not passed on to customers. The Appellant's reliance on a Chartered Accountant's certificate alone was deemed insufficient to establish non-inclusion of duty in the final product cost.

The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the requirement for documents evidencing duty payment and lack of burden passing to customers for refund eligibility. The Appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence beyond the CA's certificate led to the rejection of the refund claim. The judgment referred to previous cases emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence to support refund claims. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, directing a fresh consideration with provision for additional evidence submission. The Appellant was given an opportunity to present further evidence to support the refund claim. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected based on the lack of evidence to refute unjust enrichment, as per the findings in the impugned order.