2015 (2) TMI 1085 - AT - Central Excise

Dispute over duty computation; lack of evidence hinders appellant's refund claim

Shree Ram Textiles & Processing Mills (I) P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V

The case involved a dispute over duty computation for fabric processing, with the appellant ultimately prevailing and claiming a refund for excess duty ... Refund - Duty was paid under Compounded levy scheme - whether the appellant has passed on the burden of excise duty to their customers - unjust enrichment - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that appellant was not indicating the excise duty separately in the invoice and the invoice were indicating the cum duty price. The appellant has not been able to produce any accounting document such as balance sheet etc. to prove that the said amount has been paid by them separately and is being considered as receivables even now. In the absence of any evidence the claim of the appellant that they have not passed on the burden of duty to the consumer is a bald statement and cannot be accepted. - Decided against Assessee. Issues:1. Dispute over duty computation for fabric processing.2. Applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment.3. Burden of proof on passing duty to consumers.4. Evidence of differential duty payment and recovery.5. Admissibility of appellant's claim without supporting documentation.Issue 1: Dispute over duty computation for fabric processingThe case involved a dispute between the appellant, engaged in fabric processing, and the revenue regarding the length of the chamber for duty computation. Initially, the appellant paid duty as per their calculation but later paid the differential duty demanded by the revenue. The matter was adjudicated, settled in favor of the appellant, and a refund was claimed for the excess duty paid.Issue 2: Applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichmentThe Commissioner (Appeals) held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply to goods cleared under the compounded levy scheme, directing the refund to the appellant. However, the revenue appealed this decision, leading to the Tribunal dismissing the appeal. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court directed a fresh decision, noting a relevant precedent by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.Issue 3: Burden of proof on passing duty to consumersThe original authority confirmed demands related to the refund claim, as the appellant failed to provide evidence that the duty burden was not passed on to consumers. The appellant contended that they only collected duty corresponding to the admitted amount and could not have recovered the differential duty from customers.Issue 4: Evidence of differential duty payment and recoveryThe appellant's inability to provide detailed evidence, due to documents being lost in a flood, hindered their case. The lack of documentation, such as balance sheets, to prove that the differential duty was not considered as expenditure and was still receivable from the government weakened their position.Issue 5: Admissibility of appellant's claim without supporting documentationThe Tribunal considered the appellant's submissions but emphasized the importance of evidence. Since the appellant did not show excise duty separately in invoices and failed to produce accounting documents to support their claim of not passing on the duty burden, the claim was deemed unsubstantiated and dismissed.The judgment highlighted the significance of providing concrete evidence to support claims in tax disputes, especially regarding the passing on of duty burdens to consumers. The case underscored the need for proper documentation and adherence to legal principles such as the doctrine of unjust enrichment in resolving disputes related to duty payments and refunds.