2006 (9) TMI 363 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Unjust enrichment - Interpretation of statute - Order of Appellate Tribunal - Precedent

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment.
2. Consideration of unjust enrichment in refund claims.
3. Legal position on claiming refund despite passing on duty to customers.
4. Relevance of debit notes in determining unjust enrichment.

Issue 1: Refund claim rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowing the appeal and setting aside the order-in-original rejecting a refund claim of Rs. 1,31,181.62 on the basis of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim of Rs. 1,06,353/- by considering the debit notes issued by oil companies deducting the duty amount from bills, indicating no unjust enrichment. However, the refund claim for Rs. 16,612.54 was rejected as time-barred.

Issue 2: Consideration of unjust enrichment in refund claims
The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine whether the refund claim was barred by time and to consider the aspect of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) made an order pursuant to the remand but was set aside by the Tribunal for not considering the matter afresh as ordered. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the subsequent order observed that the issue of unjust enrichment was already considered by the Assistant Commissioner while sanctioning the refund of Rs. 1,06,353/-, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.

Issue 3: Legal position on claiming refund despite passing on duty to customers
The authorized representative for the Revenue argued that even if duty was passed on to customers during clearances, the assessee could still claim a refund by issuing credit notes, citing relevant legal precedents. However, the Counsel for the Respondent contended that deductions were made due to excess excise duty, indicating no passing on of the duty incidence and thus no unjust enrichment.

Issue 4: Relevance of debit notes in determining unjust enrichment
Despite two remands, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the legal position established in Grasim Industries, which required following the decision in Sangam Processors affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found that the duty was passed on to buyers at the time of clearance, making the assessee ineligible for a refund based on subsequent debit notes issued by the oil company. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on these findings.