2016 (10) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - debit note - unjust enrichment - Held that - there was prearrangement between appellant as a job worker and recipient of the goods i.e. principal that on settlement of the issue of duty on the job work goods, the duty so paid and recovered shall be returned by the appellant to the principal. It is also fact that the principal who is recipient of the goods has issued debit note towards amount of excise duty subsequent to the settlement of the issue. This fact has been certified by the C.A. by way of certificate that whatever duty was paid by the appellant was returned in the form of debit note issued by the principal to the appellant. If this transaction is correct then there is no reason to say that incidence of duty paid by the appellant has been passed on to either to the principal or to any other person. I failed to understand if the duty paid by the appellant and initially recovered but subsequently duty was returned back to the recipient of the goods, how the said amount can be recovered from any other person unless until it is proved by the department on the basis of tangible evidence. By applying the various judgments, I am of the view that both the lower authorities wrongly credited refund amount into consumer welfare fund. As I stated above, if the transaction of debit note is not found to be incorrect on the basis of books of account of the appellant then it is established that incidence of refund amount has not been passed on to any other person. - Appeal disposed of by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
Unjust enrichment regarding refund claim.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order upholding the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding the refund of excise duty. The dispute arose from the compounding of Asafoetida, which was resolved in favor of the appellant by the Supreme Court. The appellant, a job worker, paid duty and issued debit notes to their principal for the duty amount. The refund claim was sanctioned but credited to the consumer welfare fund, leading to the appeal.

The appellant argued against unjust enrichment, stating that the duty amount was returnable to the principal as per their understanding. They contended that the duty burden was on them, not passed on to others, supported by CA certificates and debit notes. Prearrangement between the parties and the issuance of debit notes post-dispute settlement were highlighted to show no unjust enrichment. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument.

On the contrary, the Revenue argued that once duty was paid and recovered from the principal, the duty incidence passed on, justifying the refund crediting to the consumer welfare fund. Legal judgments were cited to support this position.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and found the issue of unjust enrichment to be factual. It emphasized the prearrangement between the parties and the issuance of debit notes as crucial. The CA certificate and debit notes confirmed that the duty burden was not passed on, aligning with the legal precedents cited by the appellant. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' decision to credit the refund to the consumer welfare fund. It directed the adjudicating authority to verify the appellant's books of accounts and reprocess the refund claim, emphasizing the importance of the debit note transaction in determining unjust enrichment. The appellant was granted a personal hearing and opportunity to present necessary records.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remand, emphasizing the significance of the debit note transaction in establishing the non-passing of duty burden and directing a reevaluation of the refund claim based on the findings regarding unjust enrichment.