2006 (3) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limitation for filing the appeal.
2. Validity of the duty demand and refund claim.
3. Bar of unjust enrichment in refund claim.

Analysis:

Time Limitation for Filing the Appeal:
The lower appellate authority rejected the appeal citing both limitation and merits. However, the High Court acknowledged the order dated 23-7-2001 as appealable, received on 20-1-2002. The appeal was filed on 26-4-2002, within 14 days of receiving the High Court order. Hence, the appeal was not time-barred.

Validity of the Duty Demand and Refund Claim:
The original authority dropped the duty demand on 17-9-1992, which was accepted by the department. Subsequently, the refund claim by the job worker was rejected on 29-5-1998, stating it should have been filed by the appellant who paid the duty. The appellants paid the duty on behalf of the job worker, evidenced by TR-6 Challan and cheque details. As the duty was not payable and was paid by the appellants, they are entitled to a refund.

Bar of Unjust Enrichment in Refund Claim:
The department argued that refund, even by a non-manufacturer assessee, is subject to unjust enrichment. However, the appellants demonstrated that they did not pass on the extra duty amount to customers through increased prices. The payment was made under protest long after the clearance period. Therefore, the refund claim was not affected by unjust enrichment. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai highlights the issues of time limitation, validity of duty demand and refund claim, and the bar of unjust enrichment in the refund claim, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions made in the case.