2015 (12) TMI 1554 - AT - Central Excise

Unjust enrichment - Refund claim - duty paid on intermediate goods captively consumed - appellant submitted unsigned Chartered Accountant s certificate in de novo proceedings rather than in the original one - Held that - the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that appellant have produced the certificate with the Appeal Memorandum. He further, observed that it is a certificate typed on computer on a plain paper having no signature, date or name and address of the person, if any, who issued or to be issued by the same. Such a type written matter can by no stretch of imagination be considered as a Chartered Accountant s certificate. It is found that the appellant had not given any explanation as to why they have not produced the certificate before the Tribunal in the earlier occasion and even before the lower authorities. Hence, we do not find any substance in the submission of the appellant. The other submission of the appellant is that the Revenue should issue the show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944. It is found that the present denovo proceeding was initiated in terms of the order of the Tribunal. This issue was not raised before the Tribunal in the earlier occasions. It is also noticed that the appellant had not challenged the order of the Tribunal before the higher appellate authority. Therefore we find that both the authorities had examined the matter as per the directions of the order of the Tribunal. So, there is no error in the order passed by the lower authorities. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim based on unjust enrichment
2. Consideration of additional evidence - Chartered Accountant's certificate
3. Requirement of show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim based on unjust enrichment
The case involved the appellants claiming a refund of duty paid on intermediate goods captively consumed. The Adjudicating Authority initially sanctioned the refund, which was later challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal remanded the matter to determine unjust enrichment. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority found the refund claim hit by unjust enrichment, annulling the credit taken and ordering the amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal.

Issue 2: Consideration of additional evidence - Chartered Accountant's certificate
The appellant argued that they provided a Chartered Accountant's certificate to support their case, but it was not considered by the authorities. The Advocate contended that the certificate should have been accepted as evidence. However, the Revenue opposed the acceptance of additional evidence, stating that the certificate was not produced at an earlier stage. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the certificate and found that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not producing it earlier. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's submission regarding the certificate.

Issue 3: Requirement of show cause notice under Section 11A
The appellant raised a procedural issue regarding the absence of a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal observed that the denovo proceeding was initiated as per its order, and the issue was not previously raised. Both lower authorities had examined the matter in compliance with the Tribunal's directions. As the appellant did not challenge the Tribunal's order before a higher authority, the absence of a show cause notice was not deemed fatal to the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the lower authorities' decisions and rejected the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements and providing credible evidence to support refund claims in excise matters.