2004 (9) TMI 594 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim - Duty paid under protest - Challenge of approved classification list - Passing on incidence of duty to customers - Evidence to support claim.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable products, filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant had paid duty under protest despite having a duly approved classification list. The basis of their refund claim was a Tribunal decision in favor of another manufacturer producing the same product, resulting in the appellant paying higher duty. The appellant argued that they had not passed on the duty incidence to their customers as they were clearing goods at the same price even while paying higher duty.

The Revenue contended that since the appellant was paying duty as per the approved classification list without challenging it, they were not entitled to a refund. The Revenue emphasized that the approved classification list had never been challenged by the appellant, making the refund claim unsustainable. Citing the Supreme Court case of C.C.E, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., it was highlighted that when the classification list approval is not challenged, the correctness of the classification cannot be questioned in a refund application.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument and dismissed the appeal. It was noted that the appellant's argument of maintaining the same prices before and after assessment did not conclusively prove that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the buyers. Referring to the Supreme Court case of C.C.E., Mumbai v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., it was emphasized that price uniformity could be due to various factors and did not necessarily indicate non-passing of duty incidence. As the appellant failed to provide additional evidence to support their claim, the appeal was rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing the importance of challenging approved classification lists and the need for substantial evidence to support refund claims regarding duty incidence passing on to customers.

---