2018 (5) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - Classification of goods - Anmol Coconut Oil - Appellant had been claiming classification of Anmol Coconut Oil under Chapter 15 of the CETA more specifically under Tariff Item 15131900 from 2005 - According to Revenue the product was classifiable under Chapter 33 under Tariff Item 33059019 as hair oil - Held that - the issue of classification of the product Anmol Coconut Oil, is classifiable under Tariff Item 15131900 as edible oil and accordingly the same was chargeable to nil rate of duty under the Tariff is settled Unjust enrichment - Held that - the appellant had paid the duty under protest and also not passed on the burden of duty as they have admittedly shown the amount as recoverable from the Central Excise Department in their balance-sheets. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the refund alongwith interest as per rules within a period of 75 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of Anmol Coconut Oil under Chapter 15 or Chapter 33 of the CETA.
2. Consequential refund claims based on the classification issue.
3. Unjust enrichment in relation to the refund claims.

Classification Issue:
The appellant, involved in re-packing edible coconut oil, claimed classification under Chapter 15, while Revenue argued for Chapter 33. Circulars issued by CBEC and judicial precedents were cited. The Tribunal, in a previous order, favored the appellant's classification under Chapter 15. The Tribunal emphasized that Board circulars are not binding if contrary to law. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found the addition of an antioxidant in the oil did not change its classification. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision, remanding the matter for refund processing.

Refund Claims:
Multiple refund claims were filed by the appellant for different periods and amounts. Previous Tribunal orders favored the appellant's classification, leading to the refund claims. The Tribunal upheld its classification decision in subsequent orders, which were not appealed further. The Commissioner of Central Excise also dropped proceedings against the appellant based on the Tribunal's decisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Revenue's classification in some cases but rejected refund claims based on unjust enrichment.

Unjust Enrichment:
The appellant contended they paid duty under protest and did not pass on the burden to buyers, as evidenced by their financial records. The Tribunal previously sanctioned a refund after examining unjust enrichment for a specific period. The AR for Revenue relied on the impugned orders. The Tribunal found the appellant had paid duty under protest and not transferred the burden, as reflected in their financial records. Refunds were granted for the relevant periods, and the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to process refunds with interest within 75 days.

In conclusion, the Tribunal resolved the classification issue in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claims based on the settled classification. The Tribunal also found no unjust enrichment, directing the refund processing with interest. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper classification and adherence to legal principles in determining duty liabilities and refund claims.