2021 (3) TMI 938 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of refund - Pre-deposit or receivable - principles of unjust enrichment - appellant had only furnished a Chartered Accountant certificate which is not a conclusive proof - HELD THAT - There remains no doubt that any payment made during investigation would partake the character of pre-deposit, for which unjust enrichment would not apply. But a perusal of the impugned order i.e., the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 14.10.2019 makes it clear that the rejection of refund is upheld for want of verification from the appellant s books as to the treatment given in subsequent years, as pointed out by the Learned Representative for the Revenue. On the one hand, the appellant claims that the amount paid is to be treated as pre-deposit for which unjust enrichment would not apply, but, on the other hand, fails to furnish the necessary documents requested by the authorities who are empowered to look into all aspects before passing an order. This is because the lower authorities have to be primarily satisfied, who thereupon would record a positive finding after considering such necessary documents. This factual verification has to be done and only thereafter can we apply judicial precedents. The matter has to be set aside and remanded back to the file of the Original Authority, before whom the appellant shall furnish all necessary documents that may be required by the said authority, who thereafter shall pass a speaking order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 306/2019 dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai.
2. Payment of Education Cess under protest by the appellant.
3. Confirmation of demand with interest by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Direction by First Appellate Authority to quantify Education Cess for one year.
5. CESTAT's order allowing the appeals with consequential relief.
6. Claim for refund of the amount paid under protest.
7. Dispute regarding treatment of the amount in subsequent years.
8. Legal arguments based on judicial precedents.
9. Lack of verification from appellant's books affecting refund decision.
10. Need for furnishing necessary documents for factual verification.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai. The case involved the appellant's payment of Education Cess under protest following a case booked by the DGCEI, Madurai. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand with interest and ordered appropriation of the amount paid under protest towards the demand. Subsequently, the First Appellate Authority directed the quantification of Education Cess for one year only. CESTAT, Chennai Bench, in a final order, set aside the previous decision, allowing the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.

2. The appellant claimed a refund of the amount paid under protest based on the CESTAT's order. However, the dispute arose regarding the treatment of this amount in subsequent years, as the appellant failed to provide necessary documents for verification. The appellant argued that the payment made during investigation should be considered a pre-deposit, exempt from unjust enrichment.

3. Legal arguments were presented by both parties, citing various judicial precedents to support their positions. The Revenue's Authorized Representative referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a specific case, emphasizing the importance of proper accounting procedures and documentation. The lower authorities noted the lack of verification from the appellant's books, hindering the refund decision.

4. The judgment highlighted the necessity of factual verification through the submission of required documents before passing a conclusive order. The presiding Member considered the lack of documentation as a crucial factor in setting aside the matter for remand to the Original Authority. The appellant was instructed to furnish all necessary documents for a thorough review, ensuring compliance with legal precedents before a final decision could be made.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the significance of providing essential documentation for factual verification to address the dispute effectively. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to proper procedures and legal precedents in resolving such matters, leaving all contentions open for further consideration.

← Previous Next →