2015 (5) TMI 98 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Whether refund sanctioned allowed in the impugned order is hit by unjust enrichment or not - Held that - Respondents opted for provisional assessment for the intermediate product manufactured by them and supplied to their own sister unit for manufacture of the final product Power Driven Pumps which is exempted from payment of excise duty. The period involved in both the cases is from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2002. The Revenue has not brought any clear arguments against the impugned order but only stated that there was no clear evidence of enhancement in price and there is no evidence to show that the price remained constant. They have only stated that Chartered Accountant certificate is not acceptable whereas I find from the impugned order dt. 11.11.2005 that the LAA has dealt the issue in detail and passed an elaborate order extending reasons in para 6 to 8 and came to the conclusion that price of the final product cleared by the sister unit remained constant as the goods was exempted from excise duty - it is clear that respondents opted for provisional assessment for want of cost of raw materials consumed in the manufacture of exempted goods and placed much reliance on the certificate of the Chartered Accountant - respondents paid duty on the intermediate goods which are used in the manufacture of power driven pumps which are exempted from duty. There is no change in the price of the final product - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Finalization of assessment on clearances of intermediate products
- Provisional assessment for the period from April 2000 to March 2002
- Refund sanctioned and credited to Consumer Welfare Fund
- Dispute on unjust enrichment in refund sanctioned
- Application of case laws in support of respective arguments
- Examination of evidence and findings by lower appellate authority
- Determination of whether the bar of unjust enrichment applies

Analysis:
The judgment involves the finalization of assessment on the clearances of intermediate products, where the appellant filed two appeals against Order-in-Appeal No.111/2004 and OIA No.278/2005. The brief facts reveal that the adjudicating authority finalized the provisional assessment for the period from April 2000 to March 2002 and sanctioned refunds, which were credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The respondent preferred appeals, and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals with consequential relief, leading the Revenue to file the present appeals. The main issue revolved around whether the refund sanctioned was hit by unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that the lower appellate authority had relied on photocopies of invoices without clear evidence of price changes, arguing that the Chartered Accountant certificate submitted was stereotypical and should not have been accepted. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the goods were cleared to their sister unit for manufacturing exempted final products, hence no unjust enrichment occurred.

The judgment further delves into the arguments presented by both sides, with the appellant emphasizing the unjust enrichment clause and relying on specific case laws to support their stance. The respondent reiterated the findings of the Order-in-Appeal, highlighting that the final products were exempted from excise duty, thus justifying the provisional assessment of intermediate products. The lower appellate authority's detailed examination of the issue was crucial in determining the outcome of the case. The judgment extensively quotes the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the constant price of the final product and the absence of evidence showing price variations.

The Tribunal's analysis revealed that the respondents opted for provisional assessment due to the lack of cost information on raw materials used in manufacturing exempted goods, placing significant reliance on the Chartered Accountant certificate. The judgment cited various legal precedents where courts held that in cases where the price of the final product remains constant and there is no increase in duty rates, the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case was referenced to support this argument. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, rejecting the Revenue's appeals and disposing of the cross objection filed by the respondent. The judgment concluded that no unjust enrichment occurred in the present case, thus validating the lower appellate authority's findings.

In summary, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the issues surrounding the finalization and provisional assessment of intermediate products, the application of the unjust enrichment clause, the examination of evidence, and the reliance on case laws to support respective arguments. The detailed findings by the lower appellate authority played a crucial role in determining the outcome, ultimately leading to the rejection of Revenue's appeals based on the absence of unjust enrichment in the refund sanctioned.