9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Applicability of principle of unjust enrichment to the refund claim and limitation under the law. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was filed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal, focusing on the applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment to the refund claim and the issue of limitation under the law. The appellants were issued a show cause notice demanding duty payment, which was adjudicated upon resulting in confirmation of duty against them. However, upon appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the demand only in relation to consignments cleared from the warehouse, reducing the penalty accordingly. In compliance with the Tribunal's order, the appellants filed a refund claim amounting to Rs. 18,21,225. Initially rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on grounds of unjust enrichment, the claim's limitation was considered within time. Nevertheless, the Commissioner (Appeals) opined that the refund was time-barred and affected by unjust enrichment. The Tribunal disagreed with this view, noting that duty was paid by the appellants after goods clearance, making the passing on of duty incidence to consumers irrelevant and rendering the principle of unjust enrichment inapplicable for rejecting the refund claim. Regarding limitation, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s stance was unsustainable as the refund arose from the Tribunal's order, and the claim was filed within the stipulated period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, affirming the appellants' entitlement to the refund amount along with applicable interest as per the law. The appeal of the appellants was allowed by the Tribunal, ensuring justice in the matter.
|
