2015 (10) TMI 2531 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - excess Central Excise duty has been wrongly paid by appellant - appellant was required to deposit Central Excise Duty at the rate of 5%, whereas due to inadvertence, excess duty of ₹ 10% was deposited into the Government Account - Held that - it is found from the available records that upon verification of the Balance-Sheet and the annual accounts, the practicing Chartered Accountant vide Certificate dated 14.09.2012 has certified that the incidence of excess paid Central Excise Duty has not been passed on to any other person and the same has been borne by the appellant. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of doctrine of unjust enrichment. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The case involved the rejection of a refund claim based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, filed a refund claim stating that excess Central Excise duty was paid due to inadvertence. The claim was rejected by lower authorities citing lack of evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on to another person.

Upon review, it was found that the company's accounts clearly showed the excess paid duty as receivable from the Central Excise Department. The note attached to the Balance-Sheet indicated the amount paid and stated that it was receivable from the department. Additionally, a practicing Chartered Accountant certified that the excess duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person and was borne by the appellant.

Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the refund claim should not be rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief. The decision was made after thorough consideration of the evidence and documentation presented in the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim, emphasizing that the evidence demonstrated that the duty incidence had not been passed on to another person. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper documentation and certification in establishing claims related to unjust enrichment in Central Excise matters.