2011 (4) TMI 725 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Documentary evidence - Find that the Commissioner has not dealt with all submissions of the appellant and has simply observed that as the appellant has not produced any supporting documents in favour of the Chartered Account s certificate produced by them such certificate cannot be taken into account - If that be so the appellate authority could have called for such documentary evidences - As such, compelled to remand the matter once again to Commissioner(Appeals) for fresh decision.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment; Commissioner(Appeals) not considering appellant's submissions and documents; need for fresh decision by Commissioner(Appeals) on factual grounds.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner(Appeals) based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed in de-novo proceedings after being remanded by the Tribunal previously. The Tribunal observed that the appellate authority had failed to discuss various documents and accounts presented by the appellant, including the argument that the sale price of their final product was below the cost price. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not addressed the appellant's submissions adequately, merely dismissing them by stating that supporting documents were not produced in favor of a Chartered Account's certificate. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner should have considered calling for such documentary evidence if needed, and the appellants had indeed provided these documents to the Commissioner(Appeals), who disregarded them. Consequently, the matter was remanded once again to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a fresh decision, allowing the appellants to present their case and plead all aspects. The Tribunal stressed the importance of a prompt resolution due to the matter's relation to the period 1983-84.

In conclusion, the appeals were remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) for reconsideration based on the factual grounds and the need for a thorough examination of the appellant's submissions and supporting documents. The judgment highlighted the necessity for the Commissioner to provide a comprehensive decision considering all relevant aspects and to ensure a timely resolution of the matter.