Case Law Details
Gillette India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
CESTAT Chandigarh held that Cost Accountant certificate certifying incidence of duty has not been passed on cannot be disregarded unless it is proved to be blatantly wrong.
Facts- The appellants are engaged in manufacture and clearance of twin type shaving system razor, twin type shaving system cartridge, razor for double edge blades and razor blades (double edge); the appellants were supplying goods from his factory to the various depots availing exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 having filed a declaration dated 21.11.2006. The goods are sold to the customers from the said depots; meanwhile Notification No.50/2003 was amended by Notification No.01/2008-CE dated 18.01.2008 to provide that the exemption contained shall not apply to such goods which have been subjected to only one or more of the processes viz., preservation during storage, cleaning operations, packing or re-packing of such goods in unit container or labelling/ re-labelling of container, sorting, declaration or alteration of RSP and have not been subjected to any other process or processes; pursuant to the amendment, the appellants have registered themselves on 08.02.2008 and cleared the goods, on payment of duty u/s. 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944,under Protest, to their depots; the appellant issued commercial invoices to customers on further clearance from depots; there was no change in the MRP after or prior to January 2008 to March 2008 or after that.
Meanwhile, the appellants vide Writ Petition challenged the validity of the Notification No.01/2008. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla allowed the said Writ Petition. Accordingly, the appellant filed refund claim of Rs.1,40,33,307/- of the Excise duty paid under Protest during January 2008 to March 2008. Adjudicating authority vide OIO upheld the SCN on the ground that the refund is hit by unjust enrichment.
Conclusion- In the instant case, Revenue has lost sight of the fact that the said MRP was fixed by the appellants during the no-duty regime. Therefore, the very fact of non-upgrading the MRP when the taxes were paid would in itself constitute evidence that the incidence of duty has not been passed on.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
