2025 (2) TMI 1491 - HC - Central Excise

Unjust Enrichment determination: refund denied to claimant where absence of buyer-wise ledger proof persisted after remand.

The article addresses whether a refund under Section 11B could be paid to the claimant rather than credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, focusing on ... Refund of excise duty - unjust enrichment - production of buyer's ledgers - remand for verification - credit to Consumer Welfare Fund u/s 12C - burden to establish incidence of tax not passed on - According to the Appellant, it was liable to pay excise duty only on the transaction value, and not on the MRP - HELD THAT:- After going through the order of the Tribunal as well as the authorities below, we find that the entire issue is fact based. After examining the facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Appellant was not able to establish that it would not be unjustly enriched if the refund was granted to them. In other words, it was unable to establish that the incidence of tax of which it was claiming a refund, was not passed on to its buyers/customers. Once this is the factual finding, and considering that the buyer’s ledgers were never produced before the Authorities below, we are of the view that the above Appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law as projected in the above Appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Issues: Whether the appellant proved that there would be no unjust enrichment such that the refund claimed under Section 11B could be granted to the appellant instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12C, having failed to produce buyer-wise ledgers despite opportunities and a remand.Analysis: The dispute is fact-based concerning whether the incidence of the higher excise duty was passed on to buyers. The authorities remanded the matter for production and examination of buyer-wise ledgers to determine unjust enrichment. The appellant did not produce the required buyer ledgers despite repeated opportunities and the specific directions on remand. On the available record, the factual finding that the appellant failed to establish absence of unjust enrichment is supported by the lack of buyer-wise ledger evidence and the remand compliance requirement under the statutory scheme governing refunds.Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish that there would be no unjust enrichment; the refund was rightly directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and the appeal is against the appellant.