2018 (5) TMI 1046 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - it was alleged that appellant did not supply all the documents with the authorities - Held that - there is an inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings - The order-in-original dated 18/02/2008 by which the refund claim has been rejected on the ground that the appellant is not able to produce few documents, which to my mind, seems to be incorrect, as much time has elapsed after the refund claim has been availed. Due to efflux of time the entire proceedings needs to be given a finality - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of duty rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the rejection of a refund claim of ?1,23,600 on the basis of unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that they had provided sufficient evidence to show that the duty incidence was not passed on. The first appellate authority found that the appellant failed to produce documentary evidence regarding price increase of the pressure cooker after 1982 when duty was imposed on handles. However, a certificate from a Chartered Accountant indicated that the duty paid during the relevant period was shown as recoverable in the balance sheet and not charged to the profit and loss account. The Tribunal had remanded the matter multiple times for reconsideration. Despite an inordinate delay in the proceedings, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the delay in adjudication proceedings, coupled with the appellant's eligibility for exemption and payment of duty under protest, warranted setting aside the impugned order rejecting the refund claim. The Chartered Accountant's certificate and the history of the case supported the finding that the duty amount was not passed on, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief.