2010 (8) TMI 553 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Penalty - Unjust enrichment - the penalty of Rs. 66,713/- paid on 30-10-08 is in conformity with the first proviso to Section 11AC and the conditions attached thereto - there is no further penalty of Rs. 2,00,139/- due from the respondents, as held by the original authority - Therefore, the question of adjustment of Rs. 8,432/- towards penalty due from the respondents does not arise - Therefore decided in the favour of the assessee and refund is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty payment date
- Unjust enrichment claim for refund

Analysis:
1. Appeal against penalty payment date:
The case involves two appeals by the department challenging a common order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding penalty payment and refund. The respondents cleared goods exceeding Rs. One crore in value and paid sums towards duty, interest, and penalty. The original authority confirmed a demand and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents claimed a refund, which the original authority partially allowed but demanded further penalty payment. The department argued that the penalty was paid on the 31st day, thus not eligible for the concession under Section 11AC.

2. Unjust enrichment claim for refund:
The respondents contended that the penalty payment was within the stipulated time and cited Section 12 of the Limitation Act to support their argument. They also disputed the unjust enrichment claim by the department, stating that the amounts deposited were higher than the confirmed demand. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the penalty payment was in accordance with the law, as the date of receipt of the order was excluded for computing the period. Consequently, the penalty amount paid was deemed sufficient, and no further penalty was due. Regarding the unjust enrichment claim, the excess amount deposited was considered a refundable deposit, leading to the rejection of the department's appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the department's appeals, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on both the penalty payment date issue and the unjust enrichment claim for refund. The judgment clarified the legal provisions and their application in determining the penalty payment timeline and the eligibility for refund in cases of excess deposits.