2011 (5) TMI 713 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - limitation - unjust enrichment - under protest - deposit an amount of differential value of the goods cleared by them to their sister unit/group companies. - there is no appropriation of the amount deposited by the appellant as duty - duty incidence has not been passed on to their sister concern/group companies by producing relevant certificates from the Range Superintendent and from the balance sheet as the same is shown as receivable from the Government - appellant are able to pass the bar of unjust enrichment, on that ground also their refund claim is maintainable - on merits and on the ground of unjust enrichment the appellant has been able to make a case - appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on limitation and unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing stranded wires of steel used as inputs for Auto Control Cables, filed a refund claim after paying differential duty. The claim was rejected as time-barred and hit by unjust enrichment.
2. The appellant argued that Section 11B does not apply as they made a deposit under protest, not a duty payment. Citing legal precedents, they contended the refund claim should not be denied.
3. The department argued that Section 11B applies as the appellant paid duty on supplementary invoices. Legal cases were cited to support the application of unjust enrichment.
4. The Tribunal found that the appellant deposited the amount under protest, which was not appropriated as duty. Legal precedents were analyzed to distinguish the current case from others where unjust enrichment applied.
5. The Tribunal noted that the appellant proved duty incidence was not passed on to sister companies, supported by certificates and financial records. This evidence supported the refund claim.
6. Relying on various legal judgments, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order rejecting the refund claim. The appellant successfully demonstrated that Section 11B did not apply, and unjust enrichment was not applicable, thus entitling them to the refund.