2017 (6) TMI 710 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to pre deposit made by the appellant on the directions of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for admission of their writ petition or not? Held that - the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable, as the amount has been paid as pre deposit on the directions of the Hon ble High court of Punjab & Haryana after clearance of the goods for entertaining the writ petition - reliance placed in the case of Union of India Versus BSL Ltd. 2013 (1) TMI 813 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the pre-deposit made by the appellant on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for admission of their writ petition or not?

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, challenged a duty determination under the Compounded Levy Scheme, leading to a dispute with the Revenue. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit for the writ petition's admission, which the appellant complied with. After filing a refund claim for the pre-deposit, which was sanctioned after adjusting the duty liability, the issue of unjust enrichment arose. The appellant argued that the bar of unjust enrichment should not apply, citing decisions such as BSL Ltd. and Precise Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue contended that in cases of Compounded Levy Scheme duty, unjust enrichment applies, referencing cases like SPBL Ltd. and M/s Shivagrico Implements Ltd.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had previously held in the case of Modi Oil & General Mills that the bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from SBPL Ltd., emphasizing the need for proper documentation to prove non-inclusion of duty element. Referring to the Larger Bench decision in M/s Shivagrico Implements Ltd., the Tribunal acknowledged the general applicability of unjust enrichment in Compounded Levy Scheme cases. However, the Tribunal focused on the specific circumstances of the case, where the appellant made the pre-deposit post-clearance of goods on the court's directions.

Additionally, the Tribunal drew parallels with the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan's decision in BSL Ltd., where it was held that in cases of compliance with stay orders, the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that in the current scenario, the bar of unjust enrichment was inapplicable, as the pre-deposit was made following the Hon'ble High Court's instructions after goods clearance. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.