Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2016 (8) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (8) TMI 1071 - SC - Central Excise


  1. 2019 (11) TMI 168 - SC
  2. 2017 (1) TMI 958 - SC
  3. 2017 (5) TMI 50 - SCH
  4. 2016 (10) TMI 481 - SCH
  5. 2024 (6) TMI 1008 - HC
  6. 2021 (10) TMI 586 - HC
  7. 2021 (4) TMI 35 - HC
  8. 2020 (11) TMI 352 - HC
  9. 2019 (12) TMI 803 - HC
  10. 2018 (10) TMI 24 - HC
  11. 2018 (8) TMI 614 - HC
  12. 2017 (12) TMI 1600 - HC
  13. 2017 (10) TMI 664 - HC
  14. 2017 (7) TMI 239 - HC
  15. 2017 (6) TMI 509 - HC
  16. 2016 (11) TMI 236 - HC
  17. 2016 (10) TMI 511 - HC
  18. 2024 (12) TMI 156 - AT
  19. 2024 (10) TMI 810 - AT
  20. 2024 (8) TMI 595 - AT
  21. 2024 (7) TMI 1071 - AT
  22. 2024 (5) TMI 577 - AT
  23. 2024 (6) TMI 40 - AT
  24. 2024 (5) TMI 1004 - AT
  25. 2024 (4) TMI 819 - AT
  26. 2024 (1) TMI 1126 - AT
  27. 2024 (3) TMI 1229 - AT
  28. 2023 (12) TMI 899 - AT
  29. 2023 (11) TMI 252 - AT
  30. 2023 (7) TMI 946 - AT
  31. 2023 (8) TMI 355 - AT
  32. 2023 (3) TMI 890 - AT
  33. 2023 (2) TMI 941 - AT
  34. 2023 (2) TMI 9 - AT
  35. 2023 (1) TMI 693 - AT
  36. 2022 (11) TMI 1087 - AT
  37. 2022 (11) TMI 884 - AT
  38. 2022 (9) TMI 675 - AT
  39. 2022 (8) TMI 876 - AT
  40. 2022 (2) TMI 900 - AT
  41. 2021 (11) TMI 837 - AT
  42. 2021 (9) TMI 24 - AT
  43. 2021 (7) TMI 370 - AT
  44. 2021 (4) TMI 387 - AT
  45. 2021 (3) TMI 214 - AT
  46. 2020 (4) TMI 384 - AT
  47. 2020 (10) TMI 471 - AT
  48. 2020 (3) TMI 368 - AT
  49. 2019 (12) TMI 131 - AT
  50. 2019 (11) TMI 173 - AT
  51. 2019 (9) TMI 577 - AT
  52. 2019 (7) TMI 327 - AT
  53. 2019 (10) TMI 162 - AT
  54. 2019 (6) TMI 183 - AT
  55. 2019 (3) TMI 948 - AT
  56. 2019 (1) TMI 1886 - AT
  57. 2019 (1) TMI 1228 - AT
  58. 2018 (12) TMI 245 - AT
  59. 2018 (12) TMI 242 - AT
  60. 2018 (11) TMI 905 - AT
  61. 2018 (11) TMI 458 - AT
  62. 2019 (1) TMI 700 - AT
  63. 2018 (10) TMI 388 - AT
  64. 2018 (8) TMI 811 - AT
  65. 2018 (7) TMI 1521 - AT
  66. 2018 (8) TMI 1329 - AT
  67. 2018 (5) TMI 2047 - AT
  68. 2018 (4) TMI 978 - AT
  69. 2018 (6) TMI 174 - AT
  70. 2018 (3) TMI 761 - AT
  71. 2018 (3) TMI 486 - AT
  72. 2018 (2) TMI 782 - AT
  73. 2017 (12) TMI 8 - AT
  74. 2017 (9) TMI 1490 - AT
  75. 2017 (9) TMI 350 - AT
  76. 2017 (9) TMI 864 - AT
  77. 2017 (7) TMI 237 - AT
  78. 2017 (5) TMI 1331 - AT
  79. 2017 (6) TMI 366 - AT
  80. 2017 (5) TMI 144 - AT
  81. 2017 (3) TMI 1602 - AT
  82. 2017 (3) TMI 553 - AT
  83. 2017 (3) TMI 1449 - AT
  84. 2017 (3) TMI 292 - AT
  85. 2017 (3) TMI 237 - AT
  86. 2017 (2) TMI 1137 - AT
  87. 2017 (1) TMI 655 - AT
  88. 2016 (12) TMI 1514 - AT
  89. 2017 (2) TMI 880 - AT
  90. 2017 (1) TMI 85 - AT
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to refund of excise duty.
2. Doctrine of unjust enrichment.
3. Interpretation of Section 11-B, 12-A, 12-B, and 12-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Verification of the ultimate consumer bearing the duty burden.
5. Validity of post-clearance transactions for refund claims.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Refund of Excise Duty:
Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2002:
The respondent, a manufacturer of cutting tools, filed a refund claim for ?40,22,133/- and a supplementary claim for ?5,44,688/- towards excise duty paid on various taxes and discounts. The Department rejected the refund claim for turnover and additional discounts, arguing these were not deductible from the wholesale price under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating that the claimant only needed to show that the duty burden was not passed on to any other person, not necessarily the ultimate consumer.

Civil Appeal No. 14689 of 2015:
The Assessee, a manufacturer of pesticide formulations, sought a refund for trade discounts given post-sale. The High Court followed its earlier judgment in Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., ruling in favor of the Assessee.

Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25055 of 2009:
The Assessee, a processor of man-made fiber, sought a refund for excess duty paid due to a notification change. The High Court ruled in favor of the Assessee, stating that the burden of proof shifted to the Revenue once the Assessee showed that the duty was not passed on to the buyer.

Civil Appeal No. 8488 of 2009:
The Assessee, a 100% Export Oriented Unit manufacturing cotton yarn, sought a refund for excess duty paid. The High Court ruled in favor of the Assessee, accepting the Chartered Accountant's certificate and credit notes as evidence of returning the excess duty to buyers.

2. Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of unjust enrichment prevents a claimant from receiving a refund if the duty burden has been passed on to another person. The Court referred to the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, stating that the claimant must establish they have not passed on the duty burden to succeed in a refund claim.

3. Interpretation of Sections 11-B, 12-A, 12-B, and 12-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
Section 11-B:
The Court highlighted that a refund claim must establish that the duty incidence was not passed on to any other person. The refund amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund unless it falls under specific exceptions.

Section 12-A:
Mandates indicating the amount of duty paid on goods in all related documents.

Section 12-B:
Presumes that the duty incidence has been passed on to the buyer unless proven otherwise.

Section 12-C:
Establishes the Consumer Welfare Fund for crediting refund amounts not payable to claimants.

4. Verification of the Ultimate Consumer Bearing the Duty Burden:
The Court held that verification is necessary to determine whether the duty burden was passed on to the ultimate consumer. If it is not possible to identify the ultimate consumer, the excess duty should remain in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

5. Validity of Post-Clearance Transactions for Refund Claims:
The Court disagreed with the submission that post-clearance credit notes should not be considered for refunds. It upheld that trade discounts known at the time of sale, even if reflected post-clearance, should be considered for refund claims.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the Revenue's appeals in Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2002 and related cases, setting aside the High Court judgments and denying the Assessee's refund claims due to unjust enrichment. The appeal in Civil Appeal No. 8488 of 2009 was dismissed, allowing the Assessee's refund claim based on the evidence provided.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates