2015 (11) TMI 698 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Finalization of provisional assessment - unjust enrichment - Refund being excess duty paid in respect of discount passed through invoices or by way of credit notes - Held that - Appellants requested for finalization of provisional assessment and for valuation on various discounts on stock transfer of goods from their factory/dealers. The adjudicating authority while finalizing the provisional assessment for each year ranging from 2006 to March 2009 partly sanctioned refund being excess duty paid at factory on account of discount passed through depot/branch invoices and also rejected the amount as it failed the test of unjust enrichment clause. The LAA also held that said refund claims were hit by bar of unjust enrichment and relied the Tribunal s decision of this Bench in their own case wherein appellant s appeals were rejected and relying on another Final Order No.905/09 dt. 30.7.2009 wherein Revenue s appeal was allowed. In the present case, the appellants are not able to prove with any evidence. Therefore, the claims are hit by bar of unjust enrichment. By following this Tribunal orders in their own case referred above, I hold that the rejection of refund is valid and the LAA has rightly upheld the order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Clubbing of appeals for disposal
- Refund claim rejection under unjust enrichment clause
- Evidence of discharge of duty incidence

Clubbing of appeals for disposal:
The judgment involves six appeals arising from a common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue revolves around the finalization of provisional assessment for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2009, where the adjudicating authority partly sanctioned and partly rejected the refund on excess duty paid due to discounts passed through invoices or credit notes. The appeals were connected and taken up for disposal, as they all dealt with the same issue arising from a common order.

Refund claim rejection under unjust enrichment clause:
The appellants challenged the rejection of refund claims under the unjust enrichment clause. The adjudicating authority had partially sanctioned the refund but rejected it for failing the test of unjust enrichment. The Lower Appellate Authority (LAA) upheld the rejection, stating that the claims were hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The LAA relied on previous Tribunal decisions in the appellant's own case and held that without evidence to prove discharge of duty incidence, the claims could not be validated. Consequently, the rejection of the refund was deemed valid, and the LAA's decision was upheld in the present judgment, leading to the rejection of all six appeals.

Evidence of discharge of duty incidence:
The judgment highlighted the crucial aspect of providing evidence to prove the discharge of duty incidence in refund claims. The appellants failed to produce any evidence supporting the discharge of duty incidence, leading to the rejection of their refund claims under the unjust enrichment clause. The absence of such evidence played a significant role in the decision to uphold the rejection of the refund claims by the LAA, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of all six appeals.