2011 (12) TMI 433 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Bar of unjust enrichment - Held that - appellant has been able to prove that they have passed the bar of unjust enrichment and the adjudicating authority has rightly allowed their refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered these documents produced by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported goods and inadvertently charged Central Excise duty. The foreign buyer pointed out the error, issued a debit note, and reduced the payment by the duty amount. The appellant filed a refund claim, which was initially sanctioned but later rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that they had passed the bar of unjust enrichment by providing bank realisation certificates and debit notes as evidence.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed passed the bar of unjust enrichment. The documentary evidence presented by the appellant, which was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), proved that the duty amount had been refunded by the foreign buyer. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund claim was set aside, and the original adjudication order sanctioning the refund claim was restored.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the original adjudication order sanctioning the refund claim was reinstated. The stay application was also disposed of accordingly.