2014 (2) TMI 1336 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - rejection on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - Held that - Since the payment was under protest, question of time-bar would not arise. Unjust Enrichment - the claim has been rejected for non-production of evidences in respect of the appellant s claim that they have not passed on the duty incidence to anybody else - Held that - The matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the appellant that the claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment and time-bar.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund claim by the lower appellate authority amounting to Rs. 6,96,37,137/- paid under protest. The adjudicating authority initially proposed rejection due to time-bar for not filing the claim within one year, but later agreed that since payment was under protest, time-bar did not apply. However, the claim was rejected for unjust enrichment as the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to anyone else. The appellant contended they had not passed on the duty and provided evidence in their books of accounts. The appellate authority had previously allowed a refund partially, but this information was not presented to the adjudicating authority. The Revenue argued that the claim was rejected due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal directed the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The appellant was instructed to submit certified books of accounts showing the refund as 'receivables' and not passed on to others. Additionally, they were allowed to present the previous appellate authority's order for consideration, which had become final. The appeal was allowed for remand, emphasizing the need for proper evidence to establish the claim was not subject to unjust enrichment.