2008 (9) TMI 708 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Unjust enrichment - for the period 13-3-00 to 19-3-00 the respondent paid Central Excise duty @ 24% instead of 16% on the intermediate product - Held that - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has conclusively held that there is no question of unjust enrichment. As against the above categorical findings the Revenue has not adduced any evidence that the respondent had recovered the said duty from their customers. In absence of any contrary evidence I find that the impugned order is well reasoned one and does not suffer from any infirmity - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on erroneous duty payment rate; Question of unjust enrichment in captive consumption scenario.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was filed by the Revenue challenging the Order-in-Appeal that sanctioned a refund to the respondent. The dispute arose from the respondent paying Central Excise duty at 24% instead of 16% on an intermediate product for a specific period. The refund claim was based on the excess duty paid amounting to Rs. 33,949 during that period. The final products were duty-exempt, and duty was only paid on the intermediate product.

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original, ruling in favor of the respondent. It was noted that the duty rate had reduced to 16% from 24% during a specific period, which the respondent overlooked, resulting in the excess duty payment. The Commissioner concluded that there was no unjust enrichment as the duty was paid under protest and not recoverable, especially since the final products were duty-exempt. The Revenue contended that unjust enrichment applies even in cases of captive consumption, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the duty had been passed on to customers. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision well-reasoned and free from any defects. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the respondent's eligibility for the refund.

Overall, the judgment centered on the application of the principle of unjust enrichment in the context of duty refund claims related to captive consumption scenarios, highlighting the importance of establishing whether the duty incidence had been passed on to others.