2010 (12) TMI 239 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - On the ground of just enrichment - In view of judgment of Honrable Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. vs. CCE & Cus. (2005 -TMI - 47234 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), wherein it was held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to all the cases of refunds irrespective of whether the provision of Section 11B of the Act are applicable or not, the refund claim, in question, would be subject to the principle of unjust enrichment- Appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims for different periods, application of unjust enrichment principle, applicability of Supreme Court judgments, issuance of show cause notice for recovery of erroneous refund, review appeal for recovery of erroneously granted refund.

Analysis:
1. Refund Claims for Different Periods:
The appellant filed three refund claims for different periods, which were sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner but reviewed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner upheld the refund for one period but rejected it for another period citing unjust enrichment. The appeal challenges the rejection based on unjust enrichment for a specific period.

2. Application of Unjust Enrichment Principle:
The appellant argued against the application of unjust enrichment based on Supreme Court judgments. The appellant cited a judgment stating that unjust enrichment does not apply when duty is paid under protest. However, the tribunal noted that this argument was not relevant to the case as the assessments were not provisional during the disputed period. The tribunal held that the principle of unjust enrichment applies to all refund cases, as established by another Supreme Court judgment.

3. Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments:
The tribunal considered various Supreme Court judgments cited by both sides. While the appellant relied on a judgment regarding duty paid under protest, the tribunal emphasized a judgment establishing the general applicability of unjust enrichment to all refund cases, regardless of specific circumstances.

4. Issuance of Show Cause Notice for Recovery of Erroneous Refund:
The appellant contended that since no show cause notice for recovery of erroneous refund was issued within the prescribed time limit, the refund cannot be recovered. However, the tribunal noted that the review appeals included prayers for recovery of erroneously granted refunds. The tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that fraudulent means in obtaining an assessment order do not require setting aside the order for recovery of duty.

5. Review Appeal for Recovery of Erroneously Granted Refund:
The tribunal highlighted that the review appeals filed by the Assistant Commissioner included prayers for recovery of erroneously granted refunds. The tribunal noted that the effect of the Commissioner's order was to set aside the refund sanction and make the refund recoverable, as per applicable legal principles.

6. Conclusion:
After considering all submissions and legal precedents, the tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal challenging the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment was dismissed. The decision was based on the general principle of unjust enrichment applying to all refund cases, as established by relevant Supreme Court judgments.