2017 (7) TMI 393 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of application - Unjust enrichment - rectification application - time limitation - Held that - in the appeal by the Revenue against order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the issue relating to undue enrichment was not a point of dispute. We have perused the review order passed by the Committee of Commissioners as well as the appeal filed by Revenue. The issue of unjust enrichment is not a point discussed in these papers. The observation of the Tribunal in the impugned final order regarding unjust enrichment is not by way of decision on a point agitated in the appeal. It is a reiteration of findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). The present miscellaneous application is only with reference to unjust enrichment. The Revenue has categorically stated that they are not on the merit of the refund claim. As such, we cannot consider the impugned final order of the Tribunal as having some infirmity either by way of apparent error of record on fact or law, calling for a modification proceedings. Application dismissed being not maintainable.

Issues involved:
1. Review of final order disallowing claim of appellant regarding unjust enrichment.
2. Filing of miscellaneous application for modification of final order.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the application.
4. Objection to entertaining modification application due to non-mention of relevant case law during the original hearing.
5. Application of principles of natural justice and inherent power of tribunal to recall its order.
6. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for computation of limitation under Customs Act.
7. Satisfaction of conditions for granting relief under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
8. Rejection of miscellaneous application due to absence of mistake apparent on the face of record.
9. Consideration of unjust enrichment issue and absence of dispute in the original appeal.
10. Infirmity in the final order and inability to entertain the miscellaneous application.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue seeking a review of the final order disallowing their claim regarding unjust enrichment. The Revenue contended that the decision in Grasim Industries was overruled by a Larger Bench in SRF Ltd., which was not cited during the original hearing. The High Court dismissed the appeal but allowed the Revenue to file a review application before the Tribunal, leading to the present application.

2. The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application for modification of the final order based on the direction of the High Court and the subsequent favorable decision by the Supreme Court in their appeal. Additionally, a separate application for condonation of delay was filed due to pursuing appellate remedy diligently.

3. The respondent objected to entertaining the modification application, citing the non-mention of SRF Ltd. during the original hearing and the application being time-barred. The issue of unjust enrichment was raised, emphasizing that it was not part of the original appeal grounds and was reiterated by the Tribunal based on the Commissioner's findings.

4. The Tribunal considered the principles of natural justice and the inherent power to recall its order, as highlighted in relevant Supreme Court judgments. The application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for computation of limitation under the Customs Act was also discussed, emphasizing the need for a reasonable time frame for filing review applications.

5. Despite arguments from both sides, the Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous application, concluding that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record, neither in facts nor in law. The absence of reliance on SRF Ltd. during the original hearing was noted, leading to the dismissal of the application.

6. The Tribunal further analyzed the issue of unjust enrichment, noting that it was not a point of dispute in the original appeal by the Revenue. The application was deemed not maintainable as it did not address any infirmity in the final order or present a valid ground for modification.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal, after considering the legal and factual aspects along with the directions of the High Court, determined that the miscellaneous application could not be entertained based on the reasons outlined in the judgment.

← Previous Next →