2009 (1) TMI 257 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty paid duty paid at provisional price unjust enrichment - Refund of the excess duty paid was sanctioned by the original authority and credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) - once the goods are supplied, the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, and seller becomes entitled to the price, and once the debit note is issued by the purchaser, and corresponding credit note is issued by the seller, the price of the goods stand reduced to the extent of debit note and credit note, meaning thereby, that after issuance of debit note and credit note, the price of goods charged by the seller, from the purchaser, is the price, initially billed, minus the amount of the debit note, and credit note, and therefore, when the debit notes and credit notes are issued and effected, which are not disputed, it cannot be assumed, that incidence of burden of excise duty has been passed on to the purchaser refund allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excess duty paid, unjust enrichment, finalization of sale price post-clearance.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of excess duty paid by M/s. RPG Cables Limited (RPG) to BSNL. RPG initially charged a provisional price of Rs. 43,051.50 per K.M. for cables supplied to BSNL, which was later finalized at Rs. 19,791/-. RPG issued a credit note to BSNL for the differential amount and claimed a refund of the excess duty of Rs. 32,269. The original authority sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner (Appeals) denied it, citing case law against granting such relief despite RPG absorbing the duty burden.

In the appeal before the Tribunal, RPG argued that the case was distinguishable from previous judgments as the finalization of the sale price occurred after clearance of the goods, not after the goods were cleared at a reduced price. RPG contended that there was no unjust enrichment as the excess amount was paid back to BSNL. RPG relied on judicial authorities such as Birla Ericsson Opticals Ltd. and Union of India v. A.K. Spintex Ltd. & Anr. to support their claim for a refund.

Upon careful consideration of the case records and submissions, the Tribunal found that the excess duty was paid in circumstances where the sale price was finalized post-clearance. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities' reliance on case law did not establish unjust enrichment in granting a refund in such situations. Citing the Birla Ericsson Opticals Ltd. case and the A.K. Spintex Ltd. & Anr. case, the Tribunal concluded that refunding the excess duty in these circumstances would not result in unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of RPG.

This judgment clarifies that in cases where the sale price is finalized after the clearance of goods and the excess amount is returned to the buyer, granting a refund of the excess duty paid does not amount to unjust enrichment. The Tribunal's decision was supported by relevant case law and established principles regarding the refund of excess duty in such scenarios.