2017 (11) TMI 971 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - goods returned back to their Gorakhpur unit, on which duty has been paid - refund claim was rejected on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim - N/N. 16/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 27-4-1995 - Held that - the appellant has rightly entitled for the refund claim under N/N. 16/95-C.E. (N.T.). Whether the bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the appellant or not, admittedly, the duty has been paid by the appellant and the goods have been sent to their unit or stock transfer basis. In that circumstances, the Gorakhpur unit is not entitled to take credit on those goods, therefore, the question of bar of unjust enrichment is not arises. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection
2. Jurisdiction to entertain refund claim
3. Unjust enrichment
4. Ascertainability of duty paid goods
5. Compliance with export procedure under Notification 16/95-C.E. (N.T.)

Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellant appealed against the order rejecting their refund claim. The facts revealed that the appellant transferred HSD stock to their unit and paid duty for home consumption at Gorakhpur Depot. Subsequently, the Gorakhpur depot exported some HSD to Nepal under bond, realizing that duty payment was not required for goods exported under bond. The refund claim filed by the Gorakhpur unit was initially returned, stating the appellant should file it. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the claim citing lack of jurisdiction. However, the Ld. Commissioner (A) found the claim maintainable under Notification No. 16/95-C.E. (N.T.), allowing the refund and remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Jurisdiction to Entertain Refund Claim:
The Asstt. Commissioner initially rejected the refund claim on grounds of jurisdiction. The Ld. Commissioner (A) reversed this decision, holding the claim maintainable under the relevant notification. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for processing the refund claim. The subsequent challenge to the refund claim approval was based on issues of unjust enrichment, ascertainability of duty paid goods, and compliance with export procedures.

Unjust Enrichment:
The Ld. Commissioner (A) set aside the order allowing the refund claim, citing concerns about unjust enrichment. However, the appellate tribunal found that as duty was paid by the appellant and the goods were transferred on a stock basis, the Gorakhpur unit was not entitled to credit for those goods, thus eliminating the issue of unjust enrichment.

Ascertainability of Duty Paid Goods:
The tribunal noted that the goods sold by the appellant were part of those exported by the Gorakhpur unit to Nepal. It was emphasized that unless proven otherwise, it was evident that the exported goods were duty paid. The argument questioning the ascertainability of duty paid goods was deemed unacceptable.

Compliance with Export Procedure under Notification 16/95-C.E. (N.T.):
The tribunal ultimately held that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim under the relevant notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any. The decision highlighted the duty paid nature of the exported goods and dismissed challenges regarding unjust enrichment and compliance with export procedures.