2025-VIL-501-CESTAT-CHE-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise – Finalisation of provisional assessment, Refund of duty, Bar of Unjust enrichment – Sanction of refunds upon finalization of provisional assessments. However, the department's appeal against the refund orders was allowed by the lower appellate authority on the ground of non-compliance with the doctrine of unjust enrichment - Whether the appellant is required to conclusively prove that the incidence of duty burden has not been passed on to the ultimate buyer to be eligible for the refund – HELD - As per the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Addison & Co. Ltd., the refund of any duty can be made only to the person who bears the incidence of duty and it is necessary to conduct verification to ascertain who actually bore the burden of duty. There is a presumption under Section 12B of the CEA, 1944 that the full incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer. The 'buyer' referred to in the proviso to Section 11B(2) includes the ultimate customer, and not just the first buyer from the manufacturer - the appellant has proven that it did not pass on the duty burden to its dealers, but there was no evidence regarding whether the dealers in turn passed on the burden to the ultimate customers. The appellant is required to prove conclusively that the incidence of duty burden has not been passed on to the ultimate buyers to be eligible for the refund - the verification to be carried out should not stop with the appellant and its dealers, but should extend to the final buyers of the goods. The appellant was directed to produce all evidence as to who has ultimately borne the excise duty burden - the original adjudicating authority is directed to conduct the necessary verification as per the principles laid down in the Addison & Co. Ltd. case - The appeal is allowed by way of remand

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page