1997 (9) TMI 132 - HC - Central Excise

Excise Duty Refund Order Overturned for Failure to Prove Burden Transfer

The High Court held that the order directing the refund of excise duty to the respondent company could not be sustained as they failed to prove the burden ... Appeal - Additional ground Issues Involved:1. Refund of excise duty by the respondent company.2. Classification of hardened rice bran oil under the correct tariff item.3. Alleged unjust enrichment of the respondent company.4. Burden of proof regarding the transfer of duty to consumers.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Refund of Excise Duty by the Respondent Company:The respondent company, a manufacturer of hardened rice bran oil, paid excise duty under Tariff Item 68, which was later contested and resolved in their favor, classifying the goods under Tariff Item 12. The respondent company sought a refund of the excise duty paid. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim stating that the duty was an indirect tax passed on to the buyers, and the buyers had already received the duty credit under Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that refunding the duty to the respondent company would result in the department refunding the amount twice.2. Classification of Hardened Rice Bran Oil:The respondent company initially protested the classification of hardened rice bran oil under Tariff Item 68 but later withdrew the protest. The dispute was resolved by the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which accepted the respondent company's plea for classification under Tariff Item 12. This reclassification formed the basis for the refund claim.3. Alleged Unjust Enrichment of the Respondent Company:The appellant company and the Union of India argued that the refund order by the learned Single Judge would result in unjust enrichment of the respondent company. They contended that the respondent company had already been refunded the excise duty through the appellant company, which received the duty credit from the Central Government. The learned Single Judge's order was challenged on the grounds of unjust enrichment, as the respondent company did not suffer any real loss or prejudice.4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Transfer of Duty to Consumers:The respondent company did not plead or prove that the burden of the duty was not transferred to the consumers. The Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India established that a refund claim could only succeed if the claimant proves that they did not pass on the burden of duty to another person. The respondent company failed to establish this, and the specific assertions by the appellant company regarding the refund of duty were uncontested.Conclusion:In light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries, the High Court held that the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the refund of Rs. 1,31,811.59 could not be sustained. The appeals were allowed, and the order dated May 14, 1987, was set aside. The court also rejected the plea to remand the matter back to the Assistant Collector, as the respondent company did not initially contest the transfer of duty burden to consumers. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and parties were directed to bear their costs throughout.