Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 509 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRefund claim - adjustment of excise duty paid against duty short paid - unjust enrichment - whether the methodology of credit notes would be countenanced to revise the final price payable by the customer? - Held that: - it was incumbent upon the Assessee to demonstrate, as contemplated under Section 11B of the 1944 Act that the amount of duty of excise, in relation to which, refund was claimed, had not been passed on by him to any other person. Clause (e) appended to the proviso to Section 11B(2), which enabled even the customer or buyer to seek refund, assessee could claim refund, provided one was able to demonstrate that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to any other person. Similarly, a third category, that is, a class of applicant, who could claim refund was also noticed. These are applicants referred to in clause (f) to the proviso appended to Section 11B(2). This class of applicants, in terms of the said clause, would emerge as claimants of the refund, only upon the Central Government issuing the notification in that behalf, in the official gazette. Pertinently, though, Central Government's, mandate in that behalf is circumscribed to the extent that it cannot issue such a notification, unless it forms an opinion that the applicants, so notified had not passed on the duty to any other person. No refund can be claimed, unless the Assessee satisfies the conditions set forth in Section 11B of the 1944 Act - The Assessee, in this case is a manufacturer, had to necessarily demonstrate that the burden of duty had not been passed on to the ultimate customer - The Assessee, clearly, has not discharged its burden, as set forth in Section 11B. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
|