Case: Commnr.,Central Excise, Madras Vs. M/S. Adison &amp; Co. Ltd

Rules are so framed as to make it highly difficult for any consumer organisation to get the grant. There is no provision in the Act, Shri Nariman submitted, to locate the person really entitled to refund and to make over the money to him. “We expect a sensitive Government not to bluff but to hand back the amounts to those entitled thereto”, intoned Shri Nariman. It is a colourable device — declaimed Shri Sorabjee — “a dirty trick” and “a shabby thing”. The reply of Shri Parasaran to this criticism runs thus: It ill-becomes the manufacturers/Assessees to espouse the cause of consumers, when all the while they had been making a killing at their expense. No consumers organisation had come forward to voice any grievance against the said provisions. Clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11-B does provide for the buyer of the goods, to whom the burden of duty has been passed on, to apply for refund of duty to him, provided that he has not in his turn passed on the duty to others. It is, therefore, not correct to suggest that the Act does not provide for refund of duty to the person who has actually borne the burden. There is no vice in the relevant provisions of the Act. Rules cannot be relied upon to impugn the validity of an enactment, which must stand or fall on its own strength. The defect in the Rules, assuming that there is any, can always be corrected if the experience warrants it. The Court too may indicate the modifications needed in the Rules. The Government is always prepared to make the appropriate changes in the Rules since it views the process as a “trial and error” method — says Shri Parasaran”. 20. There was a further submission which was considered in the said judgment about the convenience/difficulty for the ultimate consumer to make applications for refund. In that connection it was held as follows:- “99. We agree with Shri Parasaran that so far as the provisions of the Act go, they are unexceptionable. Section 12-C which creates the Consumer Welfare Fund and Section 12-D which provides for making the Rules specifying the manner in which the money credited to the Fund shall be utilised cannot be faulted on any ground. Now, coming to the Rules, it is true that these Rules by themselves do not contemplate refund of any amount credited to the Fund to the consumers who may have borne the burden; the Rules only provide for “grants” being made in favour of consumer organisations for being spent on welfare of consumers. But, this is perhaps for the reason that clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11-B does provide for the purchaser of goods applying for and obtaining the refund where he can satisfy that the burden of the duty has been borne by him alone. Such a person can apply within six months of his purchase as provided in clause (e) of Explanation B appended to Section 11-B. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the impugned provisions do not provide for refunding the tax collected contrary to law to the person really entitled thereto. A practical difficulty is pointed out in this behalf by the learned counsel for appellants-petitioners: It is pointed out that the manufacturer would have paid the duty at the place of “removal” or “clearance” of the said goods but the sale may have taken place elsewhere; if the purchaser wants to apply for refund — it is submitted — he has to go to the place where the duty has been paid by the manufacturer and apply there. It is also pointed out that purchasers may be spread all over India and it is not convenient or practicable for all of them to go to the place of “removal” of goods and apply for refund. True it is that there is this practical inconvenience but it must also be remembered that such claims will be filed only by purchasers of high-priced goods where the duty component is large and not by all and sundry/small purchasers. This practical inconvenience or hardship, as it is called, cannot be a ground for holding that the provisions introduced by the 1991 (Amendment) Act are a “device” or a “ruse” to retain the taxes collected illegally and to invalidate them on that ground — assuming that such an argument is permissible in the case of a taxing enactment made by Parliament. (See R.K. Garg [(1981) 4 SCC 675 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 30 : AIR 1981 SC 2138 ] and other decisions cited in paras 87 and 88.)” 21. That a consumer can make an application for refund is clear from paras 98 and 99 of the judgment of this Court in Mafatlal Industries (supra). We are bound by the said findings of a Larger Bench of this Court. The word ‘buyer’ in Clause (e) to proviso to Section 11-B (2) of the Act cannot be restricted to the first buyer from the manufacturer. Another submission which remains to be considered is the requirement of verification to be done for the purpose of finding out who ultimately bore the burden of excise duty. It might be difficult to identify who had actually borne the burden but such verification would definitely assist the Revenue in finding out whether the manufacturer or buyer who makes an application for refund are being unjustly enriched. If it is not possible to identify the person/persons who have borne the duty, the amount of excise duty collected in excess will remain in the fund which will be utilized for the benefit of the consumers as provided in Section 12-D. 22. The High Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption of fact as well. It was held by the High Court that there is no unjust enrichment as the burden has not been passed on. The High Court’s interpretation of Section 11-B is also not correct.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]This Court approved the normal practice under which discounts are given and held that the discount is known to the dealer at the time of purchase. The Additional Solicitor General submitted that any credit note that was raised post clearance will not be taken into account for the purpose of a refund by the Department. We do not agree with the said submission as it was held by this Court in Union of India Vs Bombay Tyre International (supra) that trade discounts shall not be disallowed only because they are not payable at the time of each invoice or deducted from the invoice price. It is the submission of the Assessee that the turnover discount is known to the dealer even at the time of clearance which has also been upheld by this Court. It is clear from the above that the Assessee is entitled for filing a claim for refund on the basis of credit notes raised by him towards turnover discount.In the instant case, the Assessee has admitted that the incidence of duty was originally passed on to the buyer. There is no material brought on record to show that the buyer to whom the incidence of duty was passed on by the Assessee did not pass it on to any other person. There is a statutory presumption under Sectionof the Act that the duty has been passed on to the ultimate consumer. It is clear from the facts of the instant case that the duty which was originally paid by the Assessee was passed on. The refund claimed by the Assessee is for an amount which is part of the excise duty paid earlier and passed on. The Assessee who did not bear the burden of the duty, though entitled to claim deduction, is not entitled for a refund as he would be unjustly enriched.The sine qua non for a claim for refund as contemplated in Sectionof the Act is that the claimant has to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was paid by him and that the incidence of such duty has not been passed on by him to any other person. Section(2) provides that, in case it is found that a part of duty of excise paid is refundable, the amount shall be credited to the fund. Section 2 (ee) defines Fund to mean the Consumer Welfare Fund established under SectionThere is a proviso to Section(2) which postulates that the amount of excise duty which is refundable may be paid to the applicant instead of being credited to the fund, if such amount is relatable to the duty of excise paid by the manufacturer and he had not passed on the incidence of such duty to any other person. Clause (e) to proviso of Section(2) also enables the buyer to receive the refund if he had borne the duty of excise, provided he did not pass on the incidence of such duty to any other person. There is a third category of a class of applicants who may be specified by the Central Government by a notification in the official gazette who are also entitled for refund of the duty of excise. A plain reading of Clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the proviso to Section(2) shows that refund to be made to an applicant should be relatable only to the duty of excise paid by the three categories of persons mentioned therein i.e. the manufacturer, the buyer and a class of applicants notified by the Central Government. Clause (e) refers to the buyer which is not restricted to the first buyer from the manufacturer. The buyer mentioned in the above Clause can be a buyer downstream as well.That a consumer can make an application for refund is clear from paras 98 and 99 of the judgment of this Court in Mafatlal Industries (supra). We are bound by the said findings of a Larger Bench of this Court. The wordin Clause (e) to proviso to SectionThe High Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption of fact as well. It was held by the High Court that there is no unjust enrichment as the burden has not been passed on. The Highinterpretation of Sectionis also notissues involved in the above Civil Appeals are similar to that of Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2002.Except for a factual dispute about the genuineness of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the credit notes raised by the Assessee regarding the return of the excess duty paid by the Assessee, there is no dispute in this case of the duty being passed on to any other person by the buyer. As it is clear that the Assessee has borne the burden of duty, it cannot be said that it is not entitled for the refund of the excess duty paid. In view of the facts of this case being different from Civil Appeal No.7906 of 2002, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed.