2007 (9) TMI 64 - AT - Central Excise

Refund Common inputs Amount paid @ 8 % / 10 % in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules was under protest Such amount do not represent duty so Sec. 11B is not applicable Impugned amount has not been collected by customers hence refund of same not attract Unjust Enrichment

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is eligible for a refund of the amount paid under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for job worked goods cleared without payment of duty?
2. Whether the amount paid by the appellant constitutes "duty" and is subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act?
3. Whether the principle of unjust enrichment applies to deny the refund claimed by the appellant?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant, a manufacturer of automobile parts on job work basis, cleared goods availing exemption under Notification No. 214/86. The Department observed that the appellant had availed credit of duty paid on inputs used in goods cleared both on payment of duty and without payment under the said notification. The appellant paid an amount under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, which they later sought as a refund. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim, stating that job worked goods were exempted. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the appellant argued that job worked goods were not exempted, making them eligible for a refund. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that the job worked goods were not exempted, allowing the refund claim.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the amount paid was not "duty," thus not subject to the limitation under Section 11B. They argued that the amount was to adjust inadmissible credit for inputs used in exempted goods. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the amount was not duty, and hence, the refund was not governed by Section 11B. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not collected the amount from the principal manufacturer, indicating no unjust enrichment.

Issue 3:
The appellant further argued that the refund did not involve unjust enrichment as they had not collected the amount from buyers. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the amount was not collected from customers. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws and concluded that the appellant was eligible for the refund. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, M/s. Hwashin Automotive India Private Limited.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim for the amount paid under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, stating that the amount was not "duty" and thus not subject to the limitations under Section 11B. The Tribunal also found that the refund did not involve unjust enrichment as the amount was not collected from customers.