2018 (11) TMI 458 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excess Excise Duty paid - refund rejected on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - Held that - The appellants are having a local standi to file the refund claim as held by the Commissioner (A) against which the Department has not filed any appeal. Unjust enrichment - Held that - The appellants have produced the balance sheet as well as the certificate of the Chartered Accountant showing that the incidence of excise duty has not been passed on to the buyer or any other person and the same is shown as receivable in the books of accounts but these documents have not been considered by the authorities below. The original authority has wrongly rejected the refund claim on time bar by holding that the claim has been filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date i.e. purchase date whereas the original authority should have considered the limitation of one year from the date of finalization of the assessment as provided in Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 but the same has not been done by the original authority - the case needs reconsideration - Further, the original authority will also consider the issue of limitation of one year which will start from the date of finalization of the assessment and not from the date of purchase made by the appellant. Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment and limitation period calculation.

Analysis:
The appellant filed two appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order rejecting their refund claim. The appellant procured "CEAT" branded tyres from a registered manufacturer and filed a refund claim for excess duty paid. The lower authority rejected the claim citing unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (A) held the appellant had local standi but rejected the claim due to unjust enrichment, without addressing the limitation issue. The appellant argued the order lacked proper appreciation of facts and law. The appellant presented a Chartered Accountant's certificate stating the duty was not passed on, but the authorities did not consider it. The appellant contended the limitation period should start from the finalization of assessment, not the purchase date. The AR defended the order, stating the appellant failed to prove the duty was not passed on. The Tribunal found the appellant had local standi and provided evidence of non-passing of duty, which was not considered. The Tribunal noted the original authority wrongly rejected the claim based on a time bar from the purchase date instead of the assessment finalization date. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority to consider the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the limitation issue, directing a decision within three months, emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles and relevant legal precedents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the original authority for a fresh decision on the refund claim, considering the evidence provided by the appellant regarding unjust enrichment and the limitation period calculation. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of addressing all aspects of the case, including evidence presented, legal principles, and the correct calculation of the limitation period. The decision emphasized the need for a thorough review of the case in line with natural justice principles and previous legal precedents.