CESTAT grants duty refund after appellants successfully rebut unjust enrichment presumption with documentary evidence

CESTAT allowed the appeal for refund of duty paid under protest. Revenue rejected refund claiming unjust enrichment doctrine, arguing appellants passed duty burden to customers. CESTAT held the unjust enrichment presumption is rebuttable with documentary evidence. Appellants successfully rebutted presumption by showing constant MRP fixed during no-duty regime, indicating duty incidence not passed on. Revenue failed to counter appellants' evidence including Cost Accountant certificate with valid reasons. CESTAT found Revenue's general statements insufficient to negate appellants' documentary proof, ruling the refund rejection legally unsustainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellants is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.
2. Validity and evidentiary value of the Cost Accountant Certificate in substantiating that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the refund claim filed by the appellants is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.

M/s Gillette India Limited challenged the rejection of their refund claim of Rs.1,40,33,307/- for excise duty paid under protest during January to March 2008. The appellants argued that the incidence of duty was not passed on to their customers, supported by a Cost Accountant Certificate and balance sheet entries. The Revenue contended that the duty was included in the MRP and thus collected from customers, invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the presumption of passing on the duty is rebuttable and that the appellants had successfully rebutted this presumption with documentary evidence. The Tribunal held that the mere fact that the MRP remained constant before and after the duty imposition supported the appellants' claim that the duty was not passed on.

Issue 2: Validity and evidentiary value of the Cost Accountant Certificate.

The appellants submitted a Cost Accountant Certificate stating that the duty amount was accounted as receivables and not recovered from customers. The Tribunal emphasized that a professional certificate cannot be disregarded without valid reasons and that the onus to disprove it lies with the Department. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge the certificate with contrary evidence. The Tribunal cited several precedents where similar certificates were accepted as proof that the incidence of duty was not passed on. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was not legally sustainable as it failed to provide specific findings against the Cost Accountant Certificate.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the refund claim was not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment and that the Cost Accountant Certificate provided sufficient evidence that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the customers.

---