2017 (2) TMI 197 - HC - Central Excise

Unjust enrichment - refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellant could not show that he has not transferred the burden upon Consumers or third parties - Held that - reliance was placed in the case of UOI Vs. A.K. Spintex 2008 (11) TMI 89 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , where it was held that the presumption under Section 12-B is a rebuttable presumption and once the assessee produces evidence in support of his claim of having not passed on the incidence of duty whose refund is claimed to the customers, the burden of proof would shift to the Department to prove that the claim of the assessee is false - rejection of refund claim on the ground of doctrine of unjust enrichment is not legal and proper. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay Condonation Application; Appeal under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act, 1944; Refund of money; Burden of proof on Assessee; Doctrine of unjust enrichment; Pre-deposit under protest; Judicial precedents; Questions of law; Dismissal of appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent registration of the appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court allowed the appeal for admission on the same day as requested by the appellant's counsel.

2. The appeal arises from a judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, regarding the refund of money to the Assessee. The Tribunal had denied the refund on the grounds that the Assessee failed to demonstrate that the burden of duty had not been transferred to consumers or third parties.

3. The court referred to a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a similar dispute where it was held that the amount deposited during investigation by the Assessee was in the nature of a deposit under protest and not subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. This principle was supported by various judgments from different High Courts and the Supreme Court.

4. The court also mentioned a judgment of the Supreme Court where the High Court's view was upheld against an appeal by the Revenue. Additionally, a Division Bench of the same High Court had previously taken a similar view in a different case.

5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the presumption under Section 12-B, which is rebuttable. The burden of proof shifts to the Department once the Assessee provides evidence that the duty's incidence was not passed on to customers. In this case, the Department failed to prove that the Assessee's claim was false, leading to the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment.

6. The appellant's counsel could not challenge the legal principles cited by the court or demonstrate any errors in the Tribunal's findings. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, as the questions raised were already settled by previous judgments and were primarily questions of fact.