1993 (7) TMI 75 - SC - Central Excise

Refund - Unjust enrichment - Composite or cum-duty price - Limitation - Duty collected without authority of law - Appeal

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Refund of excess excise duty paid under a mistake of law.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment.
4. Retrospective application of amended Section 11B of the Act.
5. Limitation for claiming refund of excise duty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The respondent had paid excess excise duty under the mistaken belief that the basis for assessment should be the price at which wholesale dealers sold to secondary wholesalers, rather than the price at which the respondent sold to wholesale dealers. This interpretation was corrected by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Limited, which held that the assessable value should be based on the price at which the manufacturer sells to the wholesale dealers.

2. Refund of Excess Excise Duty Paid Under a Mistake of Law:
The respondent filed for a refund of the excess duty paid during the period September 1, 1970, to February 28, 1973. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the refund applications, but the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the refund for the period February 20, 1972, to February 28, 1973, and rejected the applications for the earlier periods as time-barred. The High Court, however, directed the refund of the entire amount of Rs. 49,90,043.01, noting that the excess excise duty was paid due to a mistake of law and that the government had a legal obligation to return it.

3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment:
The appellants argued that the respondent had passed on the burden of the excess excise duty to consumers and thus was not entitled to a refund. The respondent failed to provide satisfactory evidence to rebut this presumption. The court emphasized that under Section 12B of the Act, there is a rebuttable presumption that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer unless proven otherwise by the claimant.

4. Retrospective Application of Amended Section 11B of the Act:
The amended Section 11B, which came into effect on September 20, 1991, stipulates that no refund shall be made unless the claimant proves that the incidence of duty was not passed on to any other person. The court held that the amended provisions apply retrospectively to all pending claims, including the present case, as the order of the High Court had not acquired finality when the amendment came into force.

5. Limitation for Claiming Refund of Excise Duty:
The High Court found that the respondent could not be barred by limitation as the excess duty was paid due to a mistake of law, and the respondent had approached the authorities soon after the Voltas judgment. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the respondent was not guilty of laches.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing the refund of Rs. 49,90,043.01. The court held that the respondent failed to establish that it had not passed on the burden of the excess excise duty to any other person. The court directed the respondent to refund the amount received under the interim order with 12% interest per annum from the date of receipt within eight weeks. The court left the parties to bear their own costs.