2015 (9) TMI 1077 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - deduction of expenses relating to carriage and freight in the assessable value - Held that - Fact that the respondent was not paying duty on carriage and freight element while clearing individual consignment is not being disputed. In fact they started filing the price list only after the Hon ble Bombay High Court directed to pay the duty on the carriage and freight element and on cardboard box packaging and interest on distributors advances. They did not agree and filed appeal to the Hon ble Supreme Court. It is on the direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court that they paid the duty on these three components along with interest. The said duty was paid based upon the computation done by the Assistant Collector at that point of time and now they are claiming the refund on the basis of computation. Under the circumstances, we do not see what other documents are required to be submitted by the respondent to prove their claim. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the Revenue on this count. - In view of the decision of the Larger Bench 2013 (9) TMI 652 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund arising from Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 9.1.1997 regarding deduction of expenses related to carriage and freight in the assessable value.
2. Unjust enrichment in the case pertaining to the period from 1984 to 1989.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to a refund issue following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order regarding the deduction of expenses related to carriage and freight. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue's appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order. The Revenue challenged the rejection, citing lack of necessary documents submitted by the respondent to prove the refund on the cost element of carriage and freight. The respondent argued that they paid the duty based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction, and no further documents were needed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the duty was paid as directed, and refund computation was based on that. Thus, no additional documents were necessary.

2. The second issue raised was regarding unjust enrichment. The respondent contended that the doctrine of unjust enrichment should not apply to their case due to the period of assessments and the application of the law post-amendment. Citing the case of CCE & ST, Vadodara-II vs. Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd., the respondent argued that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to their case. The Tribunal considered the arguments and referred to the observations made by the Larger Bench in the case of Panasonic Battery India Co. Ltd. The Tribunal concurred that unjust enrichment would not apply to refunds pertaining to the finalization of provisional assessments before the amendment date. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable in the present case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on both issues. The first issue regarding the submission of necessary documents for the refund was rejected as the duty was paid as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The second issue of unjust enrichment was also dismissed based on the application of the law post-amendment and the period of assessments. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the findings of the Larger Bench, emphasizing the inapplicability of unjust enrichment in the given circumstances.