2017 (5) TMI 1194 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - cash equivalent of the export benefits - Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Held that - reliance was placed in the case of POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., CHENNAI 2008 (10) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , where it was held that what was paid by the appellants was the cash equivalent of the duty of customs forgone by the Dept. as deemed export benefits, cash payment made by appellants should be treated as a deposit and claim for its refund should be entertained without reference to the time-bar provisions of Section 27 of the CA - matter allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment, applicability of time-bar provisions, interpretation of deemed export benefits, reconsideration of the matter by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (PGCIL) against the rejection of their refund claim. The dispute arose when the World Bank delayed funding a specific project, leading to the appellant returning the cash equivalent of deemed export benefits previously availed. The appellant then sought a refund of the cash equivalent deposited as Central Excise duty. The Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) both rejected the claim, prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that being a Central Government undertaking, the ground of unjust enrichment should not apply. They relied on previous decisions in their favor, citing various cases where similar issues were resolved in their favor. The Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and previous decisions, found merit in the appellant's arguments. They referenced previous CESTAT decisions supporting the appellant's position, emphasizing that the cash payment made by the appellant should be treated as a deposit, allowing for a refund without strict adherence to time-bar provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of relaxation in time-bar provisions for refund claims associated with projects funded by international organizations like the World Bank.

In light of the observations and precedents cited, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand. They directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Original Adjudicating Authority, emphasizing the need for a fresh examination of all issues and a decision in line with the Tribunal's directions and previous decisions cited.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision signifies a nuanced approach to refund claims in cases of delayed project funding, emphasizing the need for flexibility in interpreting provisions related to unjust enrichment and time-bar limitations, especially in the context of projects supported by international organizations.