2017 (1) TMI 427 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules for tyre manufacturer in Central Excise duty dispute

Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I Versus M/s Modi Rubber Ltd.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, a tyre manufacturer, in a dispute over Central Excise duty on dip solution used in tyre manufacturing. The ... Refund - Unjust enrichment - Held that: - the amount sought as refund was deposited as revenue deposit and the deposit was against the show cause notice which was set aside by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore, the said amount never became duty and therefore the provisions of unjust-enrichment are not applicable - Further, the deposit was made in 1986 and the provisions related to unjust-enrichment become part of statute in 1991 and the said provisions did not have retrospective effect. Therefore, the question of invoking provisions related to unjust-enrichment to the present case does not arise - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Central Excise duty demand on dip solution- Refund claim rejection by Original Authority- Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent Order-in-Appeal- Ground of appeal regarding duty incidence passing- Arguments related to unjust-enrichment provisions and retrospective effectCentral Excise Duty Demand on Dip Solution:The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of Central Excise duty on dip solution used during the manufacturing of tyres. The respondent, a tyre manufacturer, was issued a show cause notice demanding duty payment. The respondent challenged this notice, and during the legal proceedings, deposited the demanded amount. The Original Authority rejected the refund claim, citing lack of evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) later held that there was no levy of Excise Duty due to a previous order of the High Court, and the incidence passing issue did not arise.Refund Claim Rejection and Appeal Proceedings:The Original Authority's rejection of the refund claim was based on the lack of documentary evidence showing that the duty amount deposited was not availed as credit in the respondent's PLA. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of proof that the appellant had taken credit for the refund amount in their PLA. This led to the revenue filing an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Commissioner's decision.Ground of Appeal and Arguments on Duty Incidence Passing:One of the grounds of appeal raised was that the respondent had not demonstrated through their Balance Sheet that the duty incidence was not passed on. During the proceedings, the revenue argued that the duty incidence passing issue was not adequately proven by the respondent. However, the respondent contended that the amount deposited was against a show cause notice set aside by the High Court, making the duty amount non-applicable, and therefore, the unjust-enrichment provisions did not apply.Unjust-Enrichment Provisions and Retrospective Effect:The respondent argued that the provisions related to unjust-enrichment did not apply to their case as the deposit made in 1986 was against a notice that was later set aside by the High Court. They further contended that the unjust-enrichment provisions introduced in 1991 did not have retrospective effect. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, agreed with the respondent's contentions and rejected the revenue's appeal, indicating that the respondent would be entitled to any consequential relief as per the law.