2008 (10) TMI 94 - HC - Central Excise

Period of 2 years elapsed between date of hearing and date of order delay in passing order by tribunal tribunal in its order merely noting that written submissions were considered but not recording what were the contentions of respondent tribunal changed its order and inserted sentence after passing of order mixing up of facts with facts of some other case admissibility of the refund claimed by assessee is required to be heard afresh by the Tribunal - case remanded

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment principle
2. Validity of passing order without fresh opportunity of hearing

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment principle
The appellant claimed a refund of duty for a specific period, which was denied by the adjudicating authority citing the principle of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the claim, stating that the amount paid under protest after a certain date was refundable. However, the Revenue appealed this decision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing that the burden of unjust enrichment had not been discharged by the appellant. Referring to previous court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that without meeting this burden, the question of a refund does not arise. The Tribunal also noted that the chartered accountant's certificate submitted by the respondent was found inadequate by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the Revenue's appeal, highlighting the importance of discharging the burden of unjust enrichment for refund claims.

Issue 2: Validity of passing order without fresh opportunity of hearing
The appellant raised a significant procedural issue regarding the passing of the order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal passed the order without providing a fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Tribunal's order was based on a hearing that took place on a specific date, but the decision was made much later without allowing for additional arguments or submissions. The High Court found that there was a considerable delay between the hearing and the order, indicating a possible mix-up of facts with another case. The High Court observed discrepancies in the Tribunal's order, noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not rejected the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. Due to these procedural irregularities and lack of clarity in the Tribunal's decision-making process, the High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal afresh after considering both parties' arguments. The Tax Appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the court's reasoning in addressing the issues raised by the parties.