2016 (12) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Manufacture - unjust enrichment - Held that - As per the invoice, it is clearly mentioned that the appellant is not recovering any amount from their buyers towards duty and the buyers have not paid any amounts to the appellant towards duty. In that circumstances, I hold that the appellant has passed the bar of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for refund claim. In these circumstances, I direct the adjudicating authority to issue refund claim in dispute to the appellant within the 30 days of the receipt of this order with consequential, relief - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of refund claim.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the denial of a refund claim, arguing that their activity did not amount to manufacture, a matter previously settled by the Tribunal. The appellant filed a refund claim for a specific period, which was initially rejected due to unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (A) later ruled in favor of the appellant regarding admissibility but rejected the claim on unjust enrichment grounds. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to determine if the appellant passed the unjust enrichment bar. The appellant argued that the impugned order exceeded the remand scope and that they had not passed on the duty burden to buyers, supported by invoices. The Revenue contended that both authorities decided the issue afresh post-remand.

Upon reviewing submissions, the Tribunal noted the earlier remand order's observations, emphasizing the need to ascertain if the duty burden was not transferred to customers. The Tribunal found the matter fit for remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner (A) had already deemed the refund admissible due to no recovery proceedings initiated for Modvat credit. As the issue of unjust enrichment was not addressed post-remand, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable.

The Tribunal examined an invoice provided by the appellant, clearly indicating no recovery of duty amounts from buyers. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not enriched unjustly and was entitled to the refund claim. Consequently, the adjudicating authority was directed to issue the refund within 30 days of the order receipt, along with consequential relief. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.