2007 (7) TMI 492 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Unjust enrichment - the respondent had debited the amount of excise duty after the clearances of the goods from their factory premises.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of differential duty paid by respondents, unjust enrichment, applicability of bar of unjust enrichment, findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), relevant case laws, admissibility of refund claim, settled law by the Tribunal, decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was regarding the refund of the differential duty paid by the respondents after the clearance of dutiable goods from their factory. The respondents had paid the duty on transport charges collected from customers, which was contested. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority citing unjust enrichment. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondent's plea, emphasizing that the duty was not recovered from customers and the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) referred to various submissions and case laws to support the decision.

The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that the duty payment was made after the clearance of goods, and the burden of duty was not passed on to customers. The Tribunal's decision in the case of Sun Beam Auto v. CCE was cited to support the non-applicability of unjust enrichment when duty is paid post-clearance. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the refund claim of Rs. 96,181/- was admissible to the appellants based on the facts presented and relevant legal principles. The decision was in line with settled law by the Tribunal and other judicial authorities.

Referring to the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana's decision in a similar case, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reaffirmed that the burden of duty was not transferred to buyers post-clearance. Consequently, the issue was considered settled in favor of the respondent due to the timing of duty payment and the absence of passing on the duty burden to customers. The Tribunal upheld the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that it was correct and did not warrant any interference. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected based on the established legal principles and factual findings presented in the case.