2011 (11) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies refund claim, company fails burden of proof on passing cost to consumers.

M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai. III

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner(Appeals) as the company failed to prove that the burden was not passed on to ... Rejection of the refund claim under Sec.11B of the Central Excise Act – Non- submission of proofs that claim not hit by clause of unjust enrichment – assessee claiming it to be refund of deposit and not duty – Held that:- Amount sought to be claimed as refund by the appellants was paid as union excise duty, evident from the excise records. Therefore, the provisions of unjust enrichment are applicable to the present case and since the appellants are not able to prove that the burden of the amount claimed by them as refund has not been passed on to their consumers, the refund has rightly been rejected by the lower authorities. - Decided against the assessee. Issues:Refund claim based on unjust enrichment clause in Central Excise Act.Analysis:The appeal was filed by a company against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai. The company, a manufacturer of biscuits, sought a refund of Rs. 1,01,21,225 based on a previous order. However, the claim lacked supporting documents to prove that the burden was not passed on to consumers. The company failed to provide necessary evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned the refund but credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to lack of proof. The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating the company failed to demonstrate that the burden was not transferred to customers.The company's counsel argued that the deposit in question was a security amount, not a duty, and thus unjust enrichment should not apply. They cited a Supreme Court decision to support their claim. The Revenue's representative countered, citing the same Supreme Court decision to assert the applicability of unjust enrichment to all refund cases. The company failed to provide evidence that the burden was not passed on, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.The Tribunal analyzed the company's refund claim and supporting documents. Entries indicated that the amount was paid as excise duty, not a security deposit as claimed by the company. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the doctrine of unjust enrichment when the burden is passed on to consumers. The Tribunal dismissed the company's appeal, as they could not prove that the burden was not transferred to customers.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, as the company failed to demonstrate that the burden was not passed on to consumers. The provisions of unjust enrichment under Sec.11B of the Central Excise Act applied to the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.