2018 (1) TMI 258 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Section 11B of CEA - Held that - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the issue of unjust-enrichment independently holding that respondents were required to clear the goods during the impugned against Central Excise gate pass and have issued composite invoice without showing duty element - reliance placed in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Metro Tyres Limited 1995 (12) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI wherein it was held that burden to prove that incidence of duty passed on to the customer is discharged by the assessee when assessee s invoice during the material period showing a composite price and duty not indicated separately. Therefore the refund claim is admissible - ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined certain documents like certificate issued by Chartered Accountant, Finance Year wise Cost Data, Sample Invoices and thereafter has arrived at decision that refund claims were rightly sanctioned by the adjudicating authority - refund rightly allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Refund Claim
2. Unjust Enrichment
3. Limitation Period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act
4. Examination of Evidence

Detailed Analysis:

Refund Claim:
The respondent filed two refund claims amounting to ?1,42,05,749.74 for the period from 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1989 and ?1,28,83,391.84 for the period from 01.04.1989 to 28.02.1992. These claims were based on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Steel Strips Limited. Initially, the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to determine if the claims were barred by the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the claims were not time-barred as the duty was paid under protest.

Unjust Enrichment:
The core issue was whether the respondent had passed on the burden of Central Excise duty to the buyers, thereby attracting the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority, on remand, examined the issue of unjust enrichment and concluded that the respondent was entitled to a refund of ?1,73,69,091/- as no unjust enrichment was involved, but disallowed the refund claim of ?97,19,781/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the Central Excise gate pass alone was not sufficient evidence to decide the passing of duty incidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to a previous order where a similar refund claim was allowed, and the issue of unjust enrichment was not involved.

Limitation Period under Section 11B:
The Tribunal had directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to determine if the refund claims were hit by the time limit specified under Section 11B. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the claims were not barred by limitation as the duty was paid under protest, which was not vacated during the relevant period.

Examination of Evidence:
The Commissioner (Appeals) examined various documents, including certificates issued by a Chartered Accountant, financial year-wise cost data, and sample invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision in the case of Metro Tyres Limited, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, to conclude that the duty incidence was not passed on to the customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that the refund claim of ?97,19,781/- was rightly rejected due to unjust enrichment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order, which had independently examined the issue of unjust enrichment and relied on relevant case laws and evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the refund claims were rightly sanctioned, except for the amount where unjust enrichment was proven.

← Previous Next →