2014 (8) TMI 321 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - price variation clause - Unjust enrichment - Failure to produce certificate from the buyer of the less receipt of payment - appellant paid duty on the provisional price which were later on finalized and it was found that the appellant has paid duty on provisional price is highly excessive and have received less payment from the customer - Assessee claims that they are entitled for refund claim of the excess duty paid by them at the time of clearance of the goods provisionally - Held that - On perusal of the record, in this case the fact on record that the final price of the cable is not known. In the absence of final prices, the appellant has failed to prove that they are entitled for refund claim. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial due to lack of proof of final price and less payment receipt.

Analysis:

1. Refund Claim Denial:
The appellant, a cable manufacturer, appealed against the denial of a refund claim for excess duty paid on goods cleared provisionally against tenders issued by MTNL/DOT. The provisional prices were later finalized, revealing an overpayment by the appellant. While a partial refund was granted, a portion was rejected due to the appellant's failure to provide a buyer certificate confirming less payment receipt and final price finalization. The appellant contended that the received payments should be considered final, and as unjust enrichment provisions were not in force during the relevant period, they should not apply. However, the tribunal found that without knowledge of the final cable price, the appellant failed to substantiate their entitlement to the refund claim. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

2. Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:
The appellant argued that the doctrine of unjust enrichment should not apply as the relevant provisions were not in effect during the period in question. However, the tribunal did not find this argument persuasive, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the final price of the cable. Without establishing the final prices, the appellant could not demonstrate their right to the refund claim. Therefore, the absence of unjust enrichment provisions during the period did not alter the outcome of the case, as the fundamental issue was the appellant's failure to provide necessary proof to support their claim.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim due to the appellant's inability to substantiate their entitlement with essential documentation, specifically the final price of the cable. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding unjust enrichment provisions, the lack of proof regarding the final price remained a critical factor in the decision. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, underscoring the importance of providing comprehensive evidence to support refund claims in customs and excise matters.