2011 (6) TMI 589 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - appellant paid duty under protest - Revenue submitted that the price-lists filed by the appellant is clearly showing the assessable value and the price at which the goods have been sold to the customers which is higher than the assessable value. - He also submitted that as per the invoices, the price shown in the price-lists which is inclusive of Central Excise duty has been recovered from the buyers. Therefore, it is quite clear that the appellant recovered the duty from their buyers Held that - invoice dated 18/07/1988 shows the prices which have been shown by the appellants in the price-lists filed before the department on 01/08/1988 where the prices in the invoices and the price-lists, prices given in the price-list have not been increased or having duty element as compared to the invoice for the previous period, appellants are entitled for the refund claim, order set aside and appeal allowed

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against denial of refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment; Classification of product under Central Excise Tariff Act; Compliance with directions of higher authorities in refund claim assessment.

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against the denial of their refund claim due to unjust enrichment. The case involved the classification of their product under CHS 2302.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, which attracted a 'nil' rate of duty, contrary to the department's view of classifying it under CHS 2936.00 with duty rates. The matter was previously decided in favor of the appellants by the Tribunal and upheld by the apex court. The appellants filed a refund claim for the duty paid under protest, which was initially sanctioned but later deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment concerns.

The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with specific directions to evaluate if the price increase was attributable to the duty element. However, the adjudicating authority failed to follow these directions in the subsequent proceedings, leading to multiple appeals and remands. The appellants argued that they had not recovered any duty from their buyers, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate and Director's affidavit. They contended that the refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment based on the absence of duty recovery from buyers.

The Revenue argued that the price-lists submitted by the appellants indicated recovery of duty from buyers, justifying the rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following higher authority's directions, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authorities had disregarded the Commissioner (Appeals) directions, leading to the current appeal.

Upon reviewing the facts and legal aspects, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the refund claim. They observed that the authorities had not followed the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the refund claim was acceptable based on the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal with consequential relief, and directed the department to comply within 30 days. The cross-objection was also disposed of accordingly.