2016 (9) TMI 624 - AT - Central Excise

Period of limitation - Refund claim - payment of differential duty on re-valuation - 10%/15% of the cost of production whether required to be added to arrive at the assessable value or not - unjust enrichment - goods not sold to any person - Held that - once it was finally settled by a quasi-judicial process in the appellant s own case that the assessable value of the impugned goods was to be arrived at by adding 10%/15% to the cost of production, the very basis of claiming the impugned refund crumbles rendering the appeal unsustainable. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to swell at the other contentions. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Assessable value determination at 110%/115% of the cost of production
- Principle of unjust enrichment
- Time-barred claim

Assessable value determination at 110%/115% of the cost of production:
The appeal was filed against an Order in Appeal that upheld the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 1,24,88,119 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Original Adjudicating Authority had rejected the refund claim based on three grounds, one of which was the determination of the assessable value at 110%/115% of the cost of production. The appellant contended that the duty paid on this component was refundable as the goods were not sold to any other person. However, previous orders had already settled the issue of valuation at 110%/115% of the cost of production. The Tribunal found that the issue of valuation had attained finality in previous orders, making the refund claim on the same ground unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Principle of unjust enrichment:
The Revenue argued that the appellant had passed on the duty burden to its customers, invoking the principle of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal noted the Revenue's argument but focused on the issue of assessable value determination. Since the issue of valuation had already been settled in previous orders, the Tribunal did not delve deeper into the principle of unjust enrichment as the basis for the refund claim had crumbled. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the valuation issue.

Time-barred claim:
Regarding the time-bar aspect of the claim, the appellant argued that the duty was paid under protest, negating the time-bar issue. However, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was primarily based on the issue of assessable value determination. The Tribunal did not specifically address the time-bar aspect separately in its analysis, as the fundamental basis for the refund claim had already been settled in prior orders, rendering the claim unsustainable. Therefore, the time-bar aspect was not a significant factor in the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the Order in Appeal that rejected the appellant's refund claim. The decision was primarily based on the issue of assessable value determination at 110%/115% of the cost of production, which had already been settled in previous orders. The Tribunal found that re-opening the issue of valuation for the refund claim was not permissible as it had already attained finality, making the appeal unsustainable. The other contentions, including the principle of unjust enrichment and the time-bar aspect, were not extensively discussed as the valuation issue was deemed decisive for the dismissal of the appeal.