2013 (12) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim rejected Unjust enrichment - Reconditioning amounts to manufacture or not Held that - No cost of the reconditioned drums stands charged by the appellant from their customers at the time of clearance of the reconditioned drums - If that be so, it has to be hold that no duty stands charged by them from their customers - Even if the appellant would not have discharged duty liability on the said reconditioned drums, under protest, at the insistence of the Revenue, their agreement of Full Service Maintenance with their customers would have remained the same - the appellant s have not recovered the amounts of duties from their customers so as to attract the unjust enrichment principles - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute regarding re-conditioning of photoreceptor drums
- Application of unjust enrichment principle in excise duty refund claims

---

Issue 1: Dispute regarding re-conditioning of photoreceptor drums

The appellants, engaged in manufacturing photocopiers, entered into Full Service Maintenance Agreements (FSMA) with customers, charging 29 paise per copy. The dispute arose when the revenue claimed that re-conditioning old photoreceptor drums amounted to manufacturing, requiring duty payment. The Tribunal previously ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to refund claims for duties paid. However, the refund claims were rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment, as the revenue alleged that the appellants indirectly recovered costs from customers. The original adjudicating authority found that the appellants collected amounts exceeding drum costs from customers, implying duty recovery. Nonetheless, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that no duty was charged to customers for reconditioned drums, thus unjust enrichment principles did not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, overturning the previous decisions.

---

Issue 2: Application of unjust enrichment principle in excise duty refund claims

The appellants contended that unjust enrichment principles should not apply as they did not recover costs from customers for reconditioned drums supplied under FSMA. The original adjudicating authority, however, concluded that amounts collected from customers covered drum costs, suggesting duty recovery. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 11B and Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, noting that the presumption of duty incidence passing to buyers pertains to disputed goods. In this case, the reconditioned drums were supplied free of cost for replacements, with customers paying maintenance charges per copy. The Tribunal rejected the authority's profit calculation method, clarifying that no duty was charged to customers for reconditioned drums at clearance. As the appellants did not recover duty amounts from customers, the unjust enrichment principle was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection of refund claims, granting relief to the appellants.

---

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of the dispute regarding re-conditioning of photoreceptor drums and the application of unjust enrichment principles in excise duty refund claims. The Tribunal's thorough examination and interpretation of relevant legal provisions led to the reversal of previous decisions, ultimately favoring the appellants in this case.