2008 (11) TMI 187 - AT - Central Excise

Refund period of limitation provisions of unjust enrichment payment under protest appellant conceded that debit entries made in PLA do not carry any expression under protest or any other indication showing that the demands were being made under protest. - such claim was being contested only on the ground that the duty was paid under mistake and as such the general principles of law would apply - rejection of refund claim to the tune of Rs.1,01,30,735/- on the ground of time bar is required to be upheld - As regards rejection of refund claim of Rs. 6,81,781/- on the ground of unjust enrichment, we note that apart from the fact that no documentary evidence has been placed to establish that the incidence of duty paid by the appellant was not passed on to their buyers refund claim rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on the ground of time bar
2. Refund claim rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing agro chemicals, paid duty based on the sale value of the principal manufacturer instead of cost of production and profit, leading to an excess duty payment. A refund claim was filed, but a show cause notice rejected it citing time bar and unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority upheld the rejection, emphasizing the duty was paid voluntarily, not under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the plea, stating the claim must adhere to the Central Excise Act provisions and be within the limitation period. The appellant argued the duty was paid under protest, supported by a letter, but it lacked evidence of receipt. The Tribunal held that the limitation for refund claims is governed by Section 11B, emphasizing the duty was paid under mistake, not protest, thus upholding the rejection based on time bar.

2. The rejection of the refund claim on the ground of unjust enrichment was also upheld. The appellant failed to provide evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. Despite the appellant's advocate not presenting arguments, the authorities found no basis to overturn the rejection. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions, concluding that the appeal was rejected, and the impugned orders were upheld. The judgment was pronounced on 25-11-2008.