2017 (10) TMI 4 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess duty paid - unjust enrichment - Held that - it is evident that the assessee-Respondents have made an excess billing of ₹ 3,60,00,000.00 involving duty amounting to ₹ 59,32,800/-. The same was credited with the excess amount of billing in the name of their customer i.e. M/s Chattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd., Raipur. As the customer has not paid the amount, so there is no question of unjust enrichment - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Department's appeal against Order-in-Appeal dismissing refund claim due to excess billing by the assessee-Respondents resulting in extra payment of Central Excise Duty.

Analysis:
The Department filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dismissing their claim regarding excess billing by the assessee-Respondents, leading to an additional payment of Central Excise Duty. The case revolved around the assessee-Respondents' business of supplying turbines to M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. The dispute pertained to the period of January 2008 and February 2008. The Department contended that the assessee-Respondents had raised invoices with an excess amount of ?3,60,00,000, causing an overpayment of Central Excise Duty amounting to ?59,32,800. The Commissioner allowed the refund claim of the assessee-Respondents, which was challenged by the Department in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed, leading to the Department filing the present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.

During the proceedings, both sides presented their arguments, with the Department represented by Shri M.R. Sharma, learned DR for the Revenue, and the assessee-Respondents represented by Shri Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel. The impugned order highlighted discrepancies in the cost of turbines due to inclusion of the cost of the BFP Motor, resulting in excess billing. The case detailed the revision of costs and the consequent excess billing on account of the PVC clause. Further scrutiny revealed discrepancies in package-wise details, ultimately leading to a total excess billing of ?3,60,00,000, including the PVC clause. The excess amount was credited to the customer, M/s Chattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd., Raipur, who did not pay, eliminating the issue of unjust enrichment.

After a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee-Respondents were entitled to a refund of ?59,32,800 due to the reasons outlined in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was pronounced in the open court, bringing the matter to a close.