2009 (1) TMI 207 - HC - Central Excise

Refund applicability of unjust enrichment department and argued that in the price declaration dated 27-1-1998 the assessable value and duty have been shown separately in respect of various varieties. The sale price at the depot constitute the assessable value of the duty of the Central Excise. Learned counsel has emphasised that the assessee-respondent has passed on the duty incident to the buyer of the finished goods and therefore it would not be entitled to retain the same. He has maintained that the doctrine of undue enrichment would apply held that in pursuance to Rule 52A of the Rules the assessee is required to furnish various particulars/declarations. It is not a case where the assessee had paid any duty and recovered the same. The declaration in the invoice is in pursuance of statutory requirement. Therefore the doctrine of undue enrichment would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. Refund is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the order allowing the appeal and refund of excess paid duty is illegal?
2. Whether the principle of undue enrichment applies in this case?
3. Whether the invoices produced meet the requirements of Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules?

Issue 1:
The revenue appealed against an order allowing a refund of excess paid duty for the assessment period of January 1998 to November 1998. The main question raised was whether the order was illegal in light of a Supreme Court judgment. The revenue argued that the duty had been passed on to the buyer, invoking the doctrine of undue enrichment. However, the respondent contended that no substantial question of law arose as the Tribunal had made factual findings. The Court held that the appeal lacked merit, citing previous Division Bench judgments. It concluded that the argument of undue enrichment was not valid as the invoices were issued in compliance with Rule 52A of the Rules.

Issue 2:
The revenue claimed that the principle of undue enrichment applied as the duty had been passed on to the buyer. However, the respondent argued that the statutory requirement of Rule 52A necessitated the particulars in the invoice, regardless of duty payment. The Court agreed with the respondent, stating that the doctrine of undue enrichment did not apply in this case as the invoice declarations were made as per statutory requirements, not for recovering paid duty.

Issue 3:
The Court examined Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, which mandates specific particulars in the invoice. The respondent contended that the invoices met the requirements of the rule and were issued in compliance. The Court agreed, emphasizing that the declarations in the invoice were in line with the statutory requirement and did not involve recovery of paid duty. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacking in merit and upheld the Tribunal's order of allowing the refund of excess paid duty for the specified assessment period.