2018 (4) TMI 1151 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that - the only product sold and for which the consideration received by the appellant was electricity. Admittedly, the tariff of such electricity was fixed by the State authorities. The appellant had no flexibility in this regard. As such, the question of passing on the duty burden suffered in the workshop, on the goods which were captively consumed in the repair of transformers, which were again consumed in the distribution of electricity, does not arise. The appellants have been incurring losses during the material time and there is sufficient evidences to show that the tariff of electricity did not vary during the material time attributable to excise duty paid by appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Entitlement for refund of duty paid during a specific period.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chandigarh was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi regarding excise duty liability for a process undertaken by the appellant. The appellant, engaged in electricity distribution, had workshops converting wires into transformer coils for internal use. The Tribunal held that this process did not amount to manufacture, leading to the appellant filing refund claims for duties paid from March 1987 to February 1993. The central issue was the entitlement of the appellant for the refund of duty paid during that period.

The impugned order acknowledged that the claims were filed in time and deemed the appellant entitled to a refund. However, the issue of unjust enrichment arose as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the excise duty burden was not passed on to others, resulting in the rejection of the claims. The appellant contended that as a government undertaking distributing electricity, the duty payment did not affect the electricity tariff fixed by the state government. They presented certificates to support that the duty incidence was not passed on to consumers. Relying on precedent cases, the appellant argued against unjust enrichment.

The Appellate Tribunal considered the appellant's submissions, emphasizing that the electricity sold was the only product, with fixed tariffs set by state authorities. The appellant's inability to influence these rates indicated that the duty burden from the workshop activities did not impact electricity prices. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that unjust enrichment did not apply, especially considering the appellant's incurred losses during the relevant period. The evidence showed that the excise duty paid was not recovered from electricity consumers. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant relief with respect to the refund claims.

In summary, the judgment resolved the issue of the appellant's entitlement to a refund of duty paid, emphasizing the lack of unjust enrichment due to the unique circumstances of the appellant's operations and the fixed nature of electricity tariffs, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and granting the requested relief.