Order Date – 31 January 2024

Parties: M/s Goldwin Medicare Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Palghar

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Goldwin Medicare Ltd., filed refund claim on 06.08.2007 on the ground that they had wrongly paid the Central Excise Duty on Retail Sale Price (Maximum Retail Price- MRP) basis during the period of January and February, 2007.
• The original authority rejected the refund observing that there was no evidence in respect of non-availment of such higher amount as Cenvat Credit or its reversal thereof in Cenvat account of customers. Hence the original authority concluded that excess/higher Excise duty paid by the appellants was actually borne by their customers.

Issue –

• Whether the appellants is eligible for their claim of refund of wrongly paid Central Excise duty?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that as per the legal provisions, payment of central excise duty in respect of the goods manufactured by the appellants as above, are required to be paid at the prescribed rate of excise duty, only on the assessable value and not on the basis of the MRP/Retail Sale Price less abatement.
• Thus payment of duty on the basis of MRP/Retail Sale Price less abatement for two months by the appellants, is not required and the same being higher, in the present case, than the duty payable as per law, the differential higher amount paid in excess is refundable.
• It is clear that this is not the case of unconstitutional levy, but payment of higher amount of excise duty on its own volition by the appellants, for which they claimed the refund of such higher amount. Thus, any refund of excise duty is required to be examined for all aspects of Section 11B ibid and in case of such refund being eligible to be paid, then in the absence of the proof of the burden of duty being not passed on to any other person, such refund is required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
• Thus it was held that the appeal filed by the appellants claiming for refund of higher excise duty paid by them instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund does not have any merits and is thus liable to be dismissed.