Tribunal Upholds Decision Denying Excise Duty Refund Claim for 'Dant Manjan Lal'

SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., NAGPUR

SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAVAN LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., NAGPUR - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 680 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:
Refund claim for excise duty on 'Dant Manjan Lal', classification under Chapter 30, unjust enrichment, applicability of case laws, burden of proof on passing incidence of duty to consumer.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim for excise duty on 'Dant Manjan Lal' by the appellants, manufacturers of Ayurvedic Medicines falling under Chapter 30. The appellants sought refund based on the Tribunal's classification decision and subsequent dismissal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned the refund, but the appellants were aggrieved by the order to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

The appellants argued that they did not pass on the duty incidence to buyers, supported by documentary evidence like invoices and price lists. They relied on case laws to establish their position, emphasizing that the selling price, not the assessment method, was crucial. They contended that unjust enrichment should focus on the first wholesale transaction, not the ultimate consumer.

The Tribunal analyzed the situation, noting that the goods were cleared based on MRP under Section 4A, but the appellants failed to prove duty exclusion from MRP. The Tribunal distinguished the Madras High Court judgment cited by the appellants, highlighting evidence of duty passing to consumers through printed MRPs. Referring to the Supreme Court's stance on unjust enrichment, the Tribunal emphasized the burden on claimants to demonstrate non-passing of duty burden.

Regarding case laws cited by the appellants, the Tribunal clarified that they pertained to Section 4, not Section 4A. It stressed that selling goods at MRP inclusive of duty implied duty passing to consumers unless proven otherwise. As the appellants failed to rebut this presumption, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on the burden of proof regarding passing on the duty incidence to consumers.