2001 (6) TMI 91 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer granted refund by Tribunal due to duty burden shift back, aligning with legal principles.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the manufacturer a refund of excess duty paid. The decision was based on the analysis of duty incidence transfer ... Refund - Unjust enrichment Issues:1. Classification of goods under different tariff headings.2. Claim of refund of excess duty paid.3. Passing on the incidence of duty to the buyer.4. Interpretation of Section 11B regarding refund eligibility.5. Application of legal principles from previous judgments.Analysis:1. The appellant was initially engaged in the manufacture of heat tracing cables classified under Heading 8516.00, attracting a higher duty rate. After a remand by the Collector (Appeals), the Assistant Collector accepted the claim for classification under Heading 85.40, which carries a lower duty rate.2. Subsequently, the manufacturer filed a claim for a refund of the excess duty paid during the intervening period. The Assistant Collector acknowledged the refund but directed the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, citing that the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer.3. The appellant contended that despite initially passing on the duty to the buyer, upon protest, the excess duty amount was credited back to the buyer's account, thereby shifting the duty incidence back to the manufacturer. However, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the decision, emphasizing that the buyer might have transferred the duty incidence to another party.4. The Tribunal analyzed Section 11B, emphasizing that if the duty is refundable, it should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund unless specific exceptions apply. Notably, the provision restricts refunds if the duty incidence has been passed on to another party, aligning with previous judgments like Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. v. C.C.E.5. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the principle that only the party ultimately bearing the duty burden can legitimately claim a refund. Citing Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the Tribunal emphasized that a refund should not enrich a party who no longer bears the duty burden. This principle guided the decision to grant the refund to the manufacturer, the actual bearer of the duty burden in this case.6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the refund to the manufacturer based on the analysis of duty incidence transfer and legal principles governing refund eligibility.