2015 (12) TMI 1644 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Refund - No supporting document - No revised application of refund - Notification No. 46/94-C.E. - Unjust enrichment - Held that - It is a settled issue that benefit under a conditional notification cannot be extended in case of non-fulfillment of conditions and/or non-compliance of procedure prescribed therein as held by the Apex Court in the case of Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association - 2005 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ; Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors - 2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT . Government observes that the point which needs to be emphasized is that when the applicant seeks rebate under Notification No. 46/1994-N.T., dated 22-9-1994, which prescribes compliance of certain conditions, the same cannot be ignored - Government finds that there is no provisions under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for condonation of non-compliance with the conditions and procedure laid down in the notification allowing rebate under said rule. Government therefore, holds that the original authority has rightly rejected the claims filed by the applicant for not giving break up of amounts claimed for the respective periods and the provisions under which claim made; non-submission of proper documents; and not following the procedure laid down under Para (ii) and Para (vi) of Notification No. 46/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1998 for the period 18-9-1998 to 15-10-1998 - Application revision rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim for the period from 1-4-1998 to 17-9-1998.
2. Refund claim for the period from 18-9-1998 to 15-10-1998.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements and submission of proper documents.
4. Application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim for the Period from 1-4-1998 to 17-9-1998:

The applicant filed a refund claim for Rs. 72,39,069/- on 9-9-2002, which was later revised to Rs. 19,85,701/-, consequent to Notification No. 24/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 15-7-2002 issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This notification directed non-recovery of excise duty on ATF supplied to Druk Airways, Bhutan, during the specified period.

The Government observed that the refund claim must be processed in terms of Section 11C(2) read with Section 11B(1) and (2) and Section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, a revision application against the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) only lies with the Government if it pertains to specific cases mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35B. The subject matter of the refund claim for the period 1-4-1998 to 17-9-1998 does not fall within these specified cases, making the revision application non-maintainable.

2. Refund Claim for the Period from 18-9-1998 to 15-10-1998:

The applicant filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,70,019.53 on 9-11-1998, based on Notification No. 39/98-C.E. (N.T.), dated 18-9-1998, which amended Notification No. 46/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1994. This amendment allowed a rebate of central excise duty paid on ATF exported as store for consumption on board an aircraft on foreign run (bound for Bhutan).

The Government noted that the applicant failed to submit the required documents and did not follow the prescribed procedures under Para-II and Para-VI of Notification No. 46/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1994. Compliance with these conditions is mandatory for claiming the rebate. The applicant's argument that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to rebate claims was acknowledged, but the failure to meet procedural requirements led to the rejection of the claim.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements and Submission of Proper Documents:

The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims due to the applicant's failure to submit the necessary documents and revised refund applications showing the actual amount under the relevant Central Excise Sections/Rules. The Government upheld this decision, emphasizing that compliance with procedural requirements is essential for processing rebate claims.

4. Application of the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:

The applicant contended that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to rebate claims on the export of excisable goods, citing Proviso (b) to Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act. The Government acknowledged this argument but reiterated that procedural compliance is mandatory for rebate claims.

Conclusion:

The Government dismissed the revision application for the period 1-4-1998 to 17-9-1998 as non-maintainable and rejected the revision application for the period 18-9-1998 to 15-10-1998 due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The orders of the lower authorities were upheld.

← Previous Next →