TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee had rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and established that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to its buyers so as to entitle it to refund under Section 11B.
Analysis: The statutory scheme places the initial burden on the claimant for refund to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on, and Section 12B raises a presumption that duty paid has been passed on to the buyer unless the contrary is proved. A cost analysis certificate may be a relevant piece of material, but by itself it is not universally sufficient to discharge this burden. In the present case, the material relied on before the adjudicating authority was insufficient, and the later certificate produced before the Court was not available for consideration at the original stage. The Tribunal's approach in treating the certificate as conclusive was therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: The presumption of passing on the duty incidence was not rebutted, and the refund claim was not established. The questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: In a refund claim under the central excise law, the claimant must affirmatively prove that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers, and a certificate of cost analysis, without adequate supporting material, is not by itself sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment.
TaxTMI 
