2009 (2) TMI 613 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods, supplied M.S. Ingots to a buyer at an incorrect excise duty rate resulting in excess payment. The appellant notified the buyer of the error and reversed the excess Cenvat credit. The appellant argued that the claim should not be rejected on the basis of unjust enrichment as they did not collect the duty from the buyer.

The adjudication order confirmed that the buyer made the payment after deducting the duty amount, supporting the appellant's claim that they did not collect the duty from the buyer. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable when duty was not collected by the assessee. Citing cases like S. Kumar's Ltd. v. CCE, Indore and Peacock Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, the Tribunal held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply when duty is not collected from the buyer. Additionally, the Tribunal mentioned the case of Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana, where the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to goods collected from customers, a decision upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Considering the precedents and the fact that duty was not collected from the buyer, the Tribunal concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this case. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, J.