2016 (6) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - appellants working under Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and are a State Government Undertaking argued that the electricity tariffs are determined by Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission and neither generating company nor the distributing company can load the electricity tariff, so the question of passing on the burden of duty to anybody else does not arise - Held that - by following the earlier decision of Tribunal in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs CCE, Pune-I 2007 (8) TMI 566 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ,the benefit is denied to Maharashtra State Electricity Board. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai revolves around the denial of a refund claim to M/s PSC Pole Factory, a manufacturing plant of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. The appellants' refund claim of &8377; 22,55,980/- was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund by the original adjudicating authority, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The crux of the argument presented by the appellant's counsel was that the refund denial based on unjust enrichment was incorrect. It was contended that as a State Government Undertaking under Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., the electricity tariffs, regulated by the Maharashtra State Electricity Regulatory Commission, do not allow for passing on the burden of duty to others. Therefore, the question of unjust enrichment should not apply in this scenario.

The Appellate Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving Maharashtra State Electricity Board, where a similar appeal was rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal highlighted that the excise duty element on the goods, PCC poles in this case, was considered as expenditure, and the tariff rate was loaded on electricity consumption, indicating that the duty burden had been transferred to consumers. Citing this precedent, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim to M/s PSC Pole Factory.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the principle of unjust enrichment by drawing parallels with a prior decision involving a related entity, thereby rejecting the appeal of M/s PSC Pole Factory. The ruling emphasizes the importance of analyzing the flow of duty burden in determining the eligibility for a refund claim in cases involving State Government Undertakings like Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Decision:
The appeal by M/s PSC Pole Factory was rejected based on the principle of unjust enrichment, following a precedent set in a similar case involving Maharashtra State Electricity Board.