1985 (7) TMI 360 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of excise duty sanctioned by Assistant Collector.
2. Rejection of part of the refund claim as barred by limitation.
3. Application under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Consideration of unjust enrichment theory in refund claims.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves a case where the Assistant Collector of Central Excise sanctioned a refund of &8377; 74,624.42 to M/s. Andhra Asphalt (P) Ltd. for excisable goods during specific periods. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) considered an appeal against the disallowed part of the claim and an application under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector held that the refund sanctioned was permissible based on legal precedents from various High Courts and a Supreme Court decision in D. Cawasji and Company v. State of Mysore.

2. The judgment references the Supreme Court case of Miles India Limited v. Assistant Collector of Customs, stating that Customs Authorities can disallow refund claims based on the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite this being a customs case, the principles apply to excise duty refunds under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The judgment clarifies that if a refund claim is made within six months from the relevant date, it should be allowed without additional requirements like passing on the refund to customers.

3. The concept of unjust enrichment, often considered in High Court and Supreme Court cases under Article 226/Article 32 of the Constitution, is discussed. The judgment emphasizes that unjust enrichment is not a factor in refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) erred in relying on decisions related to writ jurisdiction cases, as they are not applicable to refund claims.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and restored the Assistant Collector's refund order to the respondent. The refund amount was to be paid within three months from the date of the order, not based on unjust enrichment theory but on the legal provisions of Section 11B. The judgment clarifies the correct approach to refund claims and the limitations on considering unjust enrichment in such cases.