Excise duty refund rejected under Section 11B due to unjust enrichment despite valid claim on merits

CESTAT Hyderabad upheld rejection of excise duty refund claim despite appellant's entitlement on merits. Appellant sought refund of excess duty paid after issuing credit notes to dealers post-clearance. Tribunal found appellant failed to prove excess duty burden wasn't passed to ultimate customers despite selling on MRP basis. Applying SC precedent in Addison & Co. case, CESTAT held unjust enrichment provisions under Section 11B read with Section 12B barred refund to appellant. Excess amount to be dealt with under Section 12D for customer benefit. Appeal disposed off with partial sustainability of Commissioner's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility for refund on merits.
2. Applicability of unjust enrichment doctrine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Refund on Merits:

The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of cement, filed several refund claims for different periods due to excess duty paid. The appellant issued credit notes to dealers and stockists post-clearance, asserting that they had not passed on the burden of duty incidence to their customers, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Department issued a show cause notice, questioning the refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment under Section 11B read with Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, and also because the appellant had not opted for provisional assessment or intimated the quantum of discount at the time of clearance.

The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim, observing that the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to the ultimate customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the refund claims were not admissible both on merits and on the grounds of unjust enrichment.

The appellant contended that provisional assessment was not a mandatory requirement for refund and cited various judgments, including their own case, to support their claim. The Tribunal, in previous orders, had held that non-intimation regarding discounts and not opting for provisional assessment were procedural in nature and did not disentitle the assessee from claiming a refund.

2. Applicability of Unjust Enrichment Doctrine:

The Revenue argued that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the ultimate customer. The Tribunal considered various judgments, including the Larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Addison & Co. Ltd., which held that even if a refund is eligible on merits, it must clear the bar of unjust enrichment.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant initially collected the full excise duty from their dealers, distributors, and stockists, who in turn sold the product downstream to ultimate customers. The appellant failed to prove that the original duty paid at the time of clearance was not passed on to the ultimate customers. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish that the incidence of duty was not passed on to any other person, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal concluded that while the appellant was entitled to a refund on merits, they were not entitled to the refund due to the bar of unjust enrichment. The refund amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as per Section 12D of the Central Excise Act.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal disposed of the appeals by affirming that the appellant was eligible for a refund on merits but was not entitled to the refund due to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The refund claims were to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions under Section 12D of the Central Excise Act. The order was pronounced in open court on 19.07.2024.

---