2007 (6) TMI 425 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The grievance regarding the refund claim not entertained for six years leading to the plea of unjust enrichment by Revenue.

Issue 1: Grievance of delayed refund claim

The appellant's grievance was that their refund claim made on 13-9-1989 was not entertained for six years, which, according to the learned Counsel, debarred them from their claim due to unjust enrichment by Revenue. The Counsel argued that this grievance is redressable based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. The appellant, having exercised their right to refund, should not be deprived of it due to the Department's inaction.

Issue 2: Doctrine of unjust enrichment

The Revenue, represented by Shri P.K. Das, contended that the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as incorporated in the statute book, required the refund application to undergo scrutiny. Since the duty was paid under protest, the application needed to meet the test of unjust enrichment for the appellant to be entitled to the refund.

Decision:

After hearing both sides and examining the records, it was found that the right to refund arose on 25-8-1989 when the appellate order granting the refund right was issued. Despite the Revenue's argument that the duty was not paid under protest, the appellant's conduct of disputing the classification implied payment under protest pending a decision. The Tribunal referred to a previous case to establish that the pendency of the refund claim was not affected by the amended law. The right to refund arose on 25-8-1989, and the appellant filed the claim on 13-9-1989, thus any delay in considering the application could not negate the right that arose on the initial date. The Tribunal relied on the precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. and M.R.F. Ltd. to support the appellant's claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the refund.

Final Outcome:

The appeal was allowed, and the decision was dictated and pronounced in open Court.