2015 (9) TMI 39 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants refund for cenvat credit, citing evidence of duty payment and no unjust enrichment.

Kali Steel & Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli

Kali Steel & Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli - TMI Issues:Denial of consequential refund of duty claimed by the appellant due to lack of evidence and passing on the incidence of duty to customers.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy, regarding the denial of a refund claimed by the appellant. The appellant had claimed a refund of Rs. 1,07,245 arising from a previous OIA where their appeal was partly allowed. However, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund on the grounds of insufficient evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.During the hearing, the appellant's advocate presented various documents to support their claim. They provided worksheets, proof of duty payment, and an Extract of RG.23C Part-II showing a payment of Rs. 1,07,245 on 1.7.1997. The appellant argued that they did not pass on the duty incidence as demanded by the department. They cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their argument.The Assistant Commissioner (AR) reiterated the OIA and submissions, highlighting the substantial amount involved and the lack of evidence of passing on the duty incidence to customers. He referred to specific legal citations to strengthen the department's position.After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the issue of the refund claim. They noted that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence of duty payment through the Extract of RG-23C Part II, confirming the payment of Rs. 1,07,245 towards the show cause notice. The Tribunal found that the appellant had paid the entire amount by debiting it in RG-23C Part II, indicating no unjust enrichment. They emphasized that the demand arose from differential duty in each invoice, which was paid post-clearance of goods and not due to price variation. The Tribunal distinguished the cited legal precedents as not applicable to the current case and relied on a specific Tribunal order that aligned with the facts presented. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund amount debited in RG-23C Part-II for re-credit of cenvat credit.