2003 (2) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Company's Refund Claim Upheld for Central Excise Duty on Video Cassettes

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-I Versus SHETHIA AUDIO VIDEO PVT. LTD.

The company was granted a refund of Central Excise duty on pre-recorded video cassettes by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the lack of evidence showing ... Refund - Unjust enrichment - Evidence Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are the entitlement to refund of Central Excise duty, the application of the bar of unjust enrichment, the sufficiency of evidence to establish non-passing of duty burden to customers, and the relevance of registration with Central Excise authorities.Entitlement to Refund of Central Excise Duty: The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise initially dropped proceedings for recovery of Central Excise duty on pre-recorded video cassettes, citing the bar of limitation and lack of manufacturing activity in the duplication process. Subsequently, the company filed a claim for refund, which was granted by the Dy. Commissioner but with the condition of producing substantial documentary evidence to prove non-collection from customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the company's appeal for refund, emphasizing the absence of evidence showing recovery of duty from buyers after clearance of goods.Application of Bar of Unjust Enrichment: The Revenue contended that the Chartered Accountant's certificate provided by the company was insufficient to establish non-passing of duty burden to customers, insisting on the need for further documentary evidence. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the certificate satisfactory in demonstrating that the duty burden was not transferred to buyers, especially considering the absence of contrary proof on record.Relevance of Registration with Central Excise Authorities: The Revenue argued that the absence of registration with Central Excise authorities during the disputed period should not exempt the company from duty payment obligations. While acknowledging this point, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Chartered Accountant's certificate sufficed to show non-passing of duty burden to customers, leading to the acceptance of the refund claim and the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.This judgment highlights the importance of providing adequate evidence to support refund claims, the interpretation of unjust enrichment in duty matters, and the significance of registration status in Central Excise duty disputes.