Date of order: 01 November 2022

Facts:

• The appellant namely, M/s Aurolab is engaged in the manufacture of suture needles and microsurgical blades.
• The classification of suture needles was under dispute and finally settled to be under Chapter Heading 90 of CETA, 1985 attracts nil rate of duty under Sl. No. 268 of Notification No. 6/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003.
• The appellant continued to pay the duty on the needles and blades till 12.12.2005 after that vide letter dated 12.12.2005, the appellant informed the jurisdictional officer that the appellant would not be paying excise duty with effect from 12.12.2005 since those goods attract nil rate of duty.
• The appellant filed a refund claim on 22.12.2005 for refund of Rs.17,07,818/- being the duty paid by them mistakenly on suture needles.

Issue:

• Whether the refund claim is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.

Order:

• The Tribunal observed that the presumption envisaged in section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 then applies and the burden rests upon the appellant to rebut this presumption.
• The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed that though the appellants produced Cost Accountant and Chartered Accountant’s certificate, these are not certificates issued by their statutory auditors, it is also not stated in the certificates that they have scrutinized financial statements of the appellant.
• The authorities also noticed that the appellant has not been able to produce necessary documents to substantiate that they have not passed on the incidence of duty to the buyers of the goods.
• The authorities stated that the rejection of refund claim is legal and proper. 
• Hence, the appeal was dismissed.