2017 (1) TMI 875 - AT - Central Excise

Unjust enrichment - rejection of refund claim - refund claims arising out of consequences of finalization of provisional assessments - Held that - once the order for finalization of assessment is issued and it is accepted by the Department, then department cannot question the quantum of refund arising out of it after filing of the refund claim - the issue of unjust enrichment has been properly examined at the original and appellate stage and therefore, department s contention in the grounds of appeal in respect of unjust enrichment is not tenable in Law - appeal dismissed - refund allowed - decided in favor of respondent-assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal Nos.186-187/CE/Noida/2008 dated 30.12.2008
- Examination of unjust enrichment issue with respect to the accounts and balance-sheet
- Acceptance of finalization of provisional assessments by the Department
- Entitlement to refund arising from finalization of assessments

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved two appeals filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal Nos.186-187/CE/Noida/2008 dated 30.12.2008. The case revolved around the manufacture of Computer Monitors by the respondents, with provisional assessments for the financial years 2002-03 and 2003-04 being finalized by Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner. Subsequently, the respondents filed refund claims amounting to &8377; 83,65,016/- and &8377; 1,03,69,969/-, which were contested by the Revenue through a show-cause notice. The Original Authority allowed the refund claims after examining written submissions and relevant documents, directing the amounts to be credited to the Cenvat Account of the respondents.

One of the key issues raised was the examination of the unjust enrichment issue concerning the accounts and balance-sheet of the respondent. The Revenue contended that the appeals were not legal due to the absence of a proper examination of unjust enrichment. However, the First Appellate Authority held that the issue was adequately examined by the Original Authority, and refunds were granted only after thorough satisfaction. The Authority rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the Revenue reiterated their grounds, emphasizing the issue of unjust enrichment. On the other hand, the respondent argued that once the finalization of assessment is accepted by the Department, questioning the quantum of refund later is not permissible. The respondent claimed that the issue of unjust enrichment was appropriately addressed at both the original and appellate stages, with no evidence presented by the Revenue to refute the findings of the lower Authorities.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds of appeal presented by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Orders-in-Appeal and dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue. The judgment emphasized that the respondent would be entitled to consequential benefits as per the law. The decision was pronounced in open court on 30-11-2016.