2011 (6) TMI 478 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - Doctrine of unjust enrichment - Notification No.5/99 dated 28.2.99 - The doctrine of unjust enrichment would come into play only when the refund is found sanctionable this aspect is missing in the orders of both the lower authorities. The appellant have claimed that they have produced the requisite documents before the both lower adjudicating authorities - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment doctrine.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim due to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant had issued Central Excise invoices without claiming the benefit of a specific notification, resulting in the refund claim. Both lower authorities rejected the claim, citing unjust enrichment as the appellant had received payment against the invoices. The appellant contended that they issued a credit note to the customer, indicating no duty recovery. They provided a certificate from the Range Superintendent, but the lower authorities did not consider these documents. The Judge noted that the only issue was unjust enrichment, which should not be a ground for rejecting a refund claim if the refund is found sanctionable. The lower adjudicating authority was directed to reexamine the unjust enrichment doctrine based on the documents provided by the appellant. The Judge emphasized the need for an expeditious decision, preferably within three months, considering the appellant's prolonged legal battle. The appeal was allowed for remand, granting a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering the doctrine of unjust enrichment in refund claim cases. It emphasizes that unjust enrichment should not be a sole basis for rejecting a refund claim if the refund is found to be valid. The Judge stressed the significance of documenting and considering all relevant evidence, directing the lower authority to reevaluate the unjust enrichment doctrine based on the appellant's submissions. Additionally, the Judge emphasized the need for a timely decision, considering the appellant's prolonged legal battle, and instructed the lower authority to expedite the process, granting a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing.