2011 (4) TMI 1432 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of principles of unjust enrichment in a refund claim.
2. Consideration of cross-objections by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment in a refund claim made by the appellants, who were manufacturers of grey cement. The dispute arose from a scheme announced by the Central Government to incentivize cement manufacturers for increasing manufacturing capacity. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the principle of unjust enrichment cannot be disputed in such cases, emphasizing the need to determine whether the duty burden had been passed on to customers. The Assistant Commissioner initially ruled in favor of the appellants on one point but against them on the other. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the ruling, stating that the issue of unjust enrichment was beyond the scope of adjudication due to the Supreme Court's remand order. The appellate tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in not considering the applicability of unjust enrichment as directed by the Supreme Court, leading to the decision being set aside.

2. The second issue involved the Commissioner (Appeals) refusing to consider the cross-objections filed by the appellants regarding the duty burden passed on to customers. The tribunal deemed this refusal improper, stating that the cross-objections should have been considered, especially since the department had filed an appeal against the lower authority's order. The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have addressed the cross-objections within the same appeal and remanded the matter to reconsider this aspect. Consequently, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the decision on unjust enrichment but directing a review of the consideration of cross-objections related to the duty burden passed on to customers.

In summary, the appellate tribunal's judgment clarified the scope of adjudication regarding unjust enrichment in a refund claim and emphasized the importance of considering cross-objections filed by appellants. The tribunal set aside the ruling of the Commissioner (Appeals) for not adhering to the Supreme Court's directions and remanded the matter for further consideration on the duty burden passed on to customers.