2007 (5) TMI 606 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to grant of refund of duty, applicability of Supreme Court decision in Ram Body Builders case, unjust enrichment.

Challenge to grant of refund of duty: The Revenue challenged the grant of refund of duty to the Respondents by the Lower Appellate Authority. The Respondents were engaged in body building on chassis of vehicles, and duty of Excise became leviable on this activity post an amendment in April 1986. The duty payments made by the Respondents were "under protest" and registered under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Collector v. Ram Body Builders clarified the classification under Heading 87.07 of the CETA Schedule and the availability of SSI exemption to body-builders. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit of this decision to the Respondents, holding they were not liable to pay duty during the disputed periods due to SSI exemption, leading to the Revenue's appeals.

Applicability of Supreme Court decision in Ram Body Builders case: The Revenue contended that the benefit of the Apex Court's decision in Ram Body Builders case was not available to the Respondents based on a Tribunal's previous decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the High Court had stayed the operation of the previous decision, making the applicability of Ram Body Builders to the Respondents open for consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the Apex Court's classification in Ram Body Builders was binding on all authorities and would apply to manufacturers of identical goods like the Respondents. Therefore, the Revenue's challenge on this ground was deemed unsustainable.

Unjust enrichment: The issue of unjust enrichment was also considered. The lower authorities had examined and decided on this question, with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) concluding that the refund claims were not affected by unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Appellant to counter this finding. Consequently, the impugned orders were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.