2017 (9) TMI 1957 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of service tax paid - full price to be borne by appellant or some part to be recoverable from the buyers - denial of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - In this case, it is a fact on record that price of sugar is fixed, therefore, whatever duty is payable by the appellant, the same is borne by appellant and no part of duty is recoverable from the buyers as the price of sugar is includible in all taxes in the fixed price of sugar. In these circumstances, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment

Analysis:
The appellant, a sugar and molasses manufacturer, filed a refund claim after it was determined they were not required to pay Service Tax on transportation of cane to their factory. Initially, the refund claim was approved, but the Revenue later appealed, arguing unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the unjust enrichment bar, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant contended that since they were not liable for the tax, seeking a refund was justified. They argued that maintaining a sufficient balance in their Cenvat credit account during the relevant period negated unjust enrichment. Additionally, they claimed that as the price of sugar was fixed, any duty payable was solely their responsibility, making the doctrine of unjust enrichment inapplicable.

On the contrary, the Learned AR argued that since the appellant had paid Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency Service and used Cenvat credit for sugar duty payment, the duty element had been passed on, justifying the application of unjust enrichment.

After hearing both sides, the tribunal deliberated on whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment was applicable in the case. It was noted that the fixed price of sugar meant the duty was borne solely by the appellant, with no recovery from buyers. Consequently, the tribunal found the bar of unjust enrichment inapplicable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in a scenario where the price of a product is fixed, and the duty is solely borne by the taxpayer without passing it on to buyers. It emphasizes the importance of specific circumstances in determining the applicability of unjust enrichment in tax matters.