2004 (9) TMI 426 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants refund in Central Excise case, emphasizing accurate analysis of sale documents

BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a case concerning the rejection of a refund application for Central Excise duty. The appellant successfully ... Refund - Unjust enrichment Issues:- Rejection of application for refund of Central Excise duty- Allegation of passing on duty amount to buyer- Interpretation of sale invoices as composite invoices- Claim of duty not included in sale price- Unjust enrichment issueAnalysis:The case involved an appeal arising from the rejection of an application for refund of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 89,630 paid by the appellant. The impugned order denied the refund on the basis that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the duty amount had not been passed on to the buyer of the goods, citing the sale invoices as 'composite invoices.'The appellant contended that the Commissioner's findings were contrary to the facts of the case. The duty demand was related to the sale of MS scrap, with the sale invoices explicitly stating the transaction as the 'cost of old rejected MS scrap sold and debited in their account.' Notably, the invoices separately mentioned U.P. Sales Tax but made no reference to Central Excise duty. The duty payment was made after the sale, indicating that the duty was not included in the sale price. The appellant argued that the duty had not been passed on at the time of the sale, thus negating any unjust enrichment.Upon reviewing the records and considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions. The sale invoices only mentioned U.P. Sales Tax and did not include any reference to Excise Duty. Furthermore, the payment of duty was made subsequent to the sale, reinforcing the assertion that the duty amount was not part of the sale price. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the duty had not been passed on to the buyer, and the question of unjust enrichment did not arise.In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The appellant was deemed entitled to the refund of the Central Excise duty amount as claimed, highlighting the importance of accurately interpreting sale documents and demonstrating the non-inclusion of duty in the sale price to establish entitlement to a refund.