2010 (9) TMI 265 - AT - Central Excise

Unjust enrichment - assessee is engaged in manufacture of product calls as Patta Patti - refund claim - refund claim was originally rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the aspect of time bar as also on the ground of unjust enrichment - Chartered Accountant, certifying that the burden of duty has not been passed on to the buyer - Held that - angle of unjust enrichment does not stand examined in detail by either of the authorities in either of the proceedings - remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of product for duty, time bar for refund claim, unjust enrichment, appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) orders, examination of unjust enrichment in refund claims.

Classification of product for duty:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing "Patta Patti," faced classification issues from 1980 to 1986. After various classifications, the Assistant Commissioner accepted the classification under heading 25(8) in 1991, leading to a refund claim for excess duty paid. The claim was initially rejected on time bar and unjust enrichment grounds.

Time bar for refund claim:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that duty was paid under protest from 1.10.1983, making the claim for the period after that date valid. However, the Revenue challenged this decision, leading to a series of appeals and counter-appeals, including a remand by the High Court for de-novo decision by the Tribunal.

Unjust enrichment:
The issue of unjust enrichment arose concerning whether the refund claim post 1.10.1983 was affected. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored the appellant based on a Chartered Accountant's certificate stating the burden of duty was not passed on. The Tribunal emphasized the need to examine unjust enrichment in each case, citing a relevant judgment. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a detailed examination.

Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) orders:
Two parallel proceedings involved appeals against Commissioner (Appeals) orders on refund claims. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the unjust enrichment aspect, emphasizing the need for evidence to rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment.

Examination of unjust enrichment in refund claims:
The Tribunal, noting the lack of detailed examination on unjust enrichment, remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a thorough assessment. The appellants were given the opportunity to provide evidence to counter unjust enrichment and raise any other relevant issues during the reassessment.

This detailed summary outlines the complex legal issues involved in the judgment, including classification disputes, time bar considerations, unjust enrichment assessments, and the appellate process for refund claims.