2015 (2) TMI 1067 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - benefits under Notification No.6/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 as amended by Notification No.6/2007-CE dt. 01/03/2007 - CENVAT credit was claimed in respect of the goods supplied to Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board - Held that - In the light of the multiple proceedings and appeals preferred by Revenue after the order of the appellate Commissioner dt. 16/12/2009 had attained finality and since there is a serious issue for consideration whether the impugned order is sustainable on the point of jurisdiction, we direct the respondent not to initiate any proceedings for recovery of the amount of refund already sanctioned and paid to the appellant, pending disposal of the appeal. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refund claim hit by the principle of unjust enrichment.
2. Validity of the order revisiting the refund claim.
3. Jurisdictional aspect regarding the sustainability of the impugned order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim hit by the principle of unjust enrichment
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax, Hyderabad, rejecting the refund claim of the assessee. The impugned order concluded that the refund claim of a certain amount was hit by the principle of unjust enrichment, despite a portion of the claim being admissible on merits. The order further stated that the sanctioned amount was liable to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Tribunal noted the meandering course of litigation and the various orders passed in relation to the refund claim.

Issue 2: Validity of the order revisiting the refund claim
After the initial order granting a partial refund and subsequent appeal allowing the entire claim, the Assistant Commissioner issued a show-cause notice proposing to revisit the adjudication order, alleging that the claim would still be hit by unjust enrichment. This led to a subsequent order rejecting the refund claim entirely. The Tribunal observed that there was an arguable case for the assessee regarding the validity of revisiting the initial order after the appeal decision, without questioning the correctness of the appellate order.

Issue 3: Jurisdictional aspect regarding the sustainability of the impugned order
Multiple appeals were filed by the Revenue challenging different aspects of the refund claim orders. The Tribunal directed that no recovery proceedings should be initiated by the Revenue for the amount already sanctioned and paid to the appellant until the pending appeal is disposed of. The Tribunal highlighted the serious issue regarding the sustainability of the impugned order on the point of jurisdiction, and decided to tag the present appeal with another pending appeal for joint disposal in due course.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex legal issues surrounding the refund claim, the application of the principle of unjust enrichment, and the jurisdictional aspects of revisiting and sustaining the orders related to the claim. The Tribunal provided detailed analysis and directions to ensure fair consideration and disposal of the appeals involved in the case.