2015 (12) TMI 1570 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim - grounds of limitation - Held that - The transaction on which duty was paid was a domestic clearance. The appellants have not exported the goods themselves but have supplied against the CT-1 to a domestic buyers who may have in turn exported the goods. Commissioner (Appeals) has made an error in considering it as export and relying on clause (a) to the Explanation (B) of Section 11B for calculating the period of limitation. He should have relied on clause (f) to Explanation (B) of Section 11B, which clarifies the date of payment of duty shall be the relevant date. Since the appellant had paid duty in the month of May, 09 and filed a refund claim in April, 2010, the claim is not barred by limitation. Grounds of unjust enrichment - Held that - the appellants have not been given opportunity to defend their case. They could not produce certificate of Chartered Accountant or any other documents before the lower authorities as they were never asked to establish their case against unjust enrichment - Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue of unjust enrichment after considering the documents produced by the appellant. Jurisdiction of Tribunal to hear the appeal - Held that - The appellants had paid duty on the domestic transaction - refund sought cannot be equated with the rebate - Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Appeal disposed off - matter remanded to decided the issue of unjust enrichment.

Issues:
1. Calculation of period of limitation for filing a refund claim.
2. Allegation of unjust enrichment and evidence produced to establish the same.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal regarding rebate on duty paid for domestic clearance.

Analysis:
1. Calculation of period of limitation for filing a refund claim: The appellant, M/s Jaya Hind Industries Ltd., supplied goods domestically under CT-1, and the buyers exported the goods. The dispute arose when the transaction value between the appellant and the buyer was revised upwards after the completion of the quantity mentioned in the CT-1 certificate, leading to the appellant paying duty on the differential value in May 2009. The appellant filed a refund claim in April 2010, which was rejected by the lower authorities citing limitation and unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Explanation (B) of Section 11B, treating the transaction as an export transaction and considered the date of export as the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation. However, the Tribunal found that the relevant date should be the date of payment of duty, not the date of export. Therefore, the claim was not barred by limitation as the duty was paid in May 2009, and the refund claim was filed in April 2010.

2. Allegation of unjust enrichment and evidence produced: The appellant argued that they were not given due notice regarding the allegation of unjust enrichment, which hindered their ability to produce evidence. They presented a disclaimer certificate and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant during the hearing. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not been given an opportunity to defend their case on unjust enrichment and had not been asked to produce evidence before the lower authorities. As a result, the issue of unjust enrichment could not be contested adequately. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the issue of unjust enrichment after considering the documents produced by the appellant.

3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding rebate on duty for domestic clearance: The Assistant Commissioner argued that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it pertained to a rebate case. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that since the duty was paid on a domestic transaction and not on exports, the refund sought could not be equated with a rebate. The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the duty was paid for domestic clearance, and the transaction did not involve direct exports by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order that rejected the refund claim on the grounds of limitation and lack of opportunity to present evidence on unjust enrichment. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further examination of the unjust enrichment issue based on the documents provided by the appellant.

← Previous Next →