2019 (9) TMI 642 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund claim - unjust enrichment - duty discharged @ 16% instead of 9.6% due to oversight for the period from July 2002 to December 2002 - N/N. 9/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 - rebuttal of presumption - section 12B of CEA - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the appellant had shown the duty amount in the invoice issued to the customers. Thereafter, on realizing the mistake of excess payment of duty, they have issued credit notes to the customers so as to adjust the excess payment made by them. This adjustment is rebutted in the balance sheet in the form of receivables. Thus, it is very much clear from the accounts as well as the documents that the appellant has rebutted the presumption envisaged under section 12B of Central Excise Act. The rejection of the refund claim on the ground that it is hit by unjust enrichment therefore cannot sustain - Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, filed a refund claim due to an oversight resulting in excess duty payment. The claim was rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing unjust enrichment, as duty burden was presumed to have been passed on to customers. The appellant argued that they had adjusted the excess duty amount by issuing credit notes to customers, reflected in their balance sheet as receivables, thus rebutting the presumption under section 12B of the Central Excise Act.

The appellant's counsel contended that the rejection based on unjust enrichment was unjustified as the excess duty was adjusted through credit notes to customers and reflected in the balance sheet. The appellant had not passed on the duty burden, as evidenced by the adjustment made. The appellant's action of issuing credit notes and reflecting the adjustment in the balance sheet effectively rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment under section 12B of the Central Excise Act.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed rebutted the presumption of unjust enrichment by issuing credit notes to customers and reflecting the adjustment in their balance sheet. The duty amount was not passed on to customers, as demonstrated by the appellant's actions and documentation. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment was deemed unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. The appellant's actions of issuing credit notes and reflecting the adjustment in the balance sheet effectively rebutted the presumption under the Central Excise Act, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief, if applicable.