2020 (1) TMI 234 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of excise duty - finalization of the provisional assessment - unjust enrichment - refund rejected on the ground that the appellant has not produced any evidence on record to show that such duty was also recovered from the ultimate buyer of the goods inasmuch as the goods were sold to the ultimate buyers - period April 2016 to December 2016 - HELD THAT - On being questioned as to whether the attention of the Commissioner (Appeals) was drawn to the said earlier orders Learned Advocate fairly agrees that there is nothing in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which reflected upon the above fact. The matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after taking into consideration the earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) as upheld by the Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment, consideration of earlier orders by Commissioner (Appeals).

In this case, the appellant's refund claim of &8377;18,24,986 arising from the finalization of provisional assessment was rejected by the lower authorities citing unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that the duty collected from their dealers/depot was refunded to them through credit notes, a fact accepted by the lower authorities. However, the refund was denied as there was no evidence to show that the duty was also recovered from the ultimate buyers of the goods. The period in question was April 2016 to December 2016. The appellant highlighted that a similar refund claim for an earlier period had been approved by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a previous order, which was upheld by the Tribunal after a challenge by the Revenue. The appellant argued that since the issue had been decided in their favor previously, the impugned order was unsustainable. However, it was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been made aware of these earlier orders. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, instructing consideration of the earlier orders that favored the appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.