Excise duty refund denied to manufacturer, directed to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B for failure to prove non-passing of duty burden to buyers.

CESTAT Mumbai held that appellants' claim for refund of wrongly paid Central Excise Duty on MRP basis for January-February 2007 was not payable to them but to Consumer Welfare Fund. The goods manufactured by appellants under tariff items 3005 1000, 9018 3100, 5602 1000 were not covered under MRP-based duty notification. While excess duty was refundable, appellants failed to prove non-passing of duty burden to buyers despite multiple opportunities. Under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1962, without proof that duty incidence wasn't passed on, refund must be credited to Consumer Welfare Fund. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of refund claim for Central Excise duty paid at a higher amount.
2. Crediting the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund versus refunding it to the appellant.

Summary:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Refund Claim
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, initially filed a refund claim for Rs. 29,30,174.60/- on the grounds of wrongful payment of Central Excise Duty on MRP basis during January and February 2007. The claim was returned due to incomplete documentation. Upon resubmission, the jurisdictional Range Superintendent verified the claim and reported that the appellants paid the duty voluntarily without departmental instructions, and the products were not under the MRP-based scheme of assessment. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued for rejection on grounds of delay and unjust enrichment. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The original adjudicating authority, upon re-examination, sanctioned the refund but credited it to the Consumer Welfare Fund, concluding that the appellants passed on the duty incidence to the buyers.

Issue 2: Crediting to Consumer Welfare Fund
The Tribunal examined whether the refund, if eligible, should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund or refunded to the appellants. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, mandates that refunds are credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund unless specific exceptions apply, such as the manufacturer not passing on the duty incidence. The authorities concluded that the appellants did not provide adequate evidence to prove that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the buyers. Despite opportunities, the appellants failed to submit buyers' ledgers or proof of non-availment of Cenvat Credit by the buyers. The Tribunal upheld the original authority's decision, noting that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof to establish that the duty incidence was not transferred to third parties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the refund amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as the appellants failed to demonstrate that they had not passed on the duty incidence to their customers. The impugned order was deemed sustainable both legally and factually.

---