2007 (12) TMI 386 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Time-bar for filing refund claim u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Unjust enrichment.
3. Filing refund claim in the prescribed format.

Summary:

1. Time-bar for Filing Refund Claim u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appellant filed a refund claim stepping into the shoes of DRW, a job worker, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority as time-barred. The appellant argued that they could not file the claim within 6 months/1 year from the date of purchase of goods because the matter was sub judice and was finally resolved in favor of DRW by the Tribunal on 14-7-1998 and the Supreme Court on 17-3-2005. The adjudicating authority held that the relevant date for filing the refund claim is the date of purchase of goods. However, the appellant contended that the limitation should be reckoned from the date of the Tribunal's order. The judgment noted that the duty was paid under protest by DRW, and thus, the limitation of one year does not apply as per the second proviso to Section 11B. Consequently, the refund claim was not hit by the time limit.

2. Unjust Enrichment:
The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the grounds that the appellant failed to prove they had not passed on the duty incidence to any other person. The appellant provided worksheets, CA/Cost Accountant's certificates, and specimen copies of invoices, which were brushed aside without detailed examination. The judgment emphasized that the adjudicating authority should have thoroughly examined the documents and called for further evidence if necessary. The matter was remanded back to the original authority to re-examine the evidence and pass a reasoned order.

3. Filing Refund Claim in the Prescribed Format:
The adjudicating authority also rejected the refund claim on the basis that it was not filed in the prescribed format. The appellant argued that this was a technical/venial breach of procedure, which should not deny them a substantial benefit. The judgment did not dwell extensively on this issue but implied that procedural lapses should not overshadow substantive rights.

Conclusion:
The judgment remanded the case back to the original authority with directions to call for relevant documents and pass a reasoned order within three months, addressing the issues of time-bar and unjust enrichment comprehensively.