2004 (7) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Applicability of clause of unjust enrichment in a refund claim related to duty of excise.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a Revenue appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the applicability of the clause of unjust enrichment in a refund claim. The appellants undertook manufacturing of goods for a principal manufacturer and were entitled to a refund claim of Rs. 4,21,036. However, the Deputy Commissioner transferred the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, as it was believed that the duty incidence had been passed on to the customer. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the appellants' argument that the duty incidence was not passed on to the customer, allowing the appeal. The Revenue challenged this decision.

The key issue to be decided was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in accepting the appellants' argument that the clause of unjust enrichment did not apply. The Tribunal noted that the appellants, as manufacturers, were subject to clause (d) of Section 11B(2) which pertains to duty paid by the manufacturer without passing it on to any other person. The High Court's decision further supported this interpretation. It was established that the appellants had indeed collected a price inclusive of higher duty from their customer, M/s. Adishakti International, indicating that the duty incidence had been passed on. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed to have erred in his decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was illegal, and the Revenue's appeal was successful. The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, affirming the applicability of the clause of unjust enrichment in the refund claim related to duty of excise.