2004 (11) TMI 387 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duty amount to the appellants; Rejection of refund claim based on limitation; Failure to consider the principle of unjust enrichment in the refund claim examination.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi pertained to the issue of refund of duty amount to the appellants. The facts of the case revealed that the appellants had initially cleared goods but later had to remove defects and re-cleared the goods, paying duty again. The appellants then claimed a refund of the excess duty paid during this process. However, the claim was rejected by the authorities below citing limitation as the grounds for rejection. The authorities calculated the limitation period from the date of sending the intimation under Rule 173L, which was deemed incorrect. The correct approach, as per Section 11B, required the limitation period to be computed from the date of payment of duty. In this case, the refund claim filed on 21-9-99 was within the six-month limitation period from the date of payment of duty on 26-5-99. The Tribunal found the authorities' approach erroneous and directed a re-examination by the adjudicating authority to determine the timeliness of the refund claim.

The Tribunal also noted that the refund claim had not been evaluated concerning the principle of unjust enrichment by the authorities below. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination of the refund claim, considering both the limitation issue and the principle of unjust enrichment. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of with directions for a comprehensive re-examination of the refund claim.