2008 (1) TMI 685 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim for duty paid under protest.
2. Time-barred refund claim.
3. Unjust enrichment and burden of proof.

Issue 1: Refund claim for duty paid under protest
The case involved the appellant initially filing a refund claim for duty paid amounting to Rs. 11,25,046/- as per departmental directions. The appellant was clearing goods by claiming exemption under a specific notification. However, a show cause notice was issued stating that the exemption was not available, leading to the appellant paying a significant amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld that duty was paid under protest, and the refund claim was justified. The revenue did not challenge this decision. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued questioning a portion of the refund, but the Commissioner held that since the duty was already deemed to be paid under protest, this new argument could not be entertained.

Issue 2: Time-barred refund claim
The Assistant Commissioner initially rejected the refund claim on the grounds of being time-barred due to the duty not being paid under protest as per Rule 233B. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, emphasizing that the duty was indeed paid under protest, as acknowledged in the show cause notice itself. The revenue did not challenge this decision. Subsequent challenges to the refund claim were based on new grounds, which were not permissible due to the earlier decision regarding payment under protest.

Issue 3: Unjust enrichment and burden of proof
The revenue contended that a specific amount was not paid under protest and raised the issue of unjust enrichment, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already determined that the entire amount was paid under protest, a decision unchallenged by the revenue. The Tribunal ruled that introducing new arguments regarding unjust enrichment at a later stage, when it was not part of the original proceedings, was not permissible. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the earlier findings regarding payment under protest and the lack of merit in the revenue's contentions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the progression of the case, the key legal arguments, and the Tribunal's reasoning in dismissing the revenue's appeal.