2006 (7) TMI 222 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of plea of limitation by Tribunal
2. Reliance on unauthenticated document by Tribunal
3. Refund order by Tribunal in unjust enrichment cases

Analysis:

Issue 1: Consideration of plea of limitation by Tribunal
The Tribunal was questioned for not considering the plea of limitation raised before it. The Assistant Commissioner had already rejected the limitation claim in his order dated 19-12-2001, which became final as the Revenue did not challenge it. The Tribunal rightly held that the Revenue cannot raise the same issue again after accepting the finding. Therefore, the first issue is decided in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Reliance on unauthenticated document by Tribunal
The second question revolved around the Tribunal's reliance on a letter dated 23-7-96, deemed unauthenticated by the Revenue. However, the letter was duly signed by the authorized signatory of the assessee, and the duty paid during proceedings is considered paid under protest. Citing the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the duty paid under protest does not adhere to normal procedures. Hence, the second issue is resolved in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Refund order in unjust enrichment cases
The Tribunal's decision to order a refund in cases of alleged unjust enrichment was challenged by the Revenue. The letters from customers IOC and MRL (now CPCL) confirmed that no excise duty was paid to the assessee. Despite this evidence, the Assistant Commissioner erroneously concluded that the claim was hit by unjust enrichment. The High Court found the customers' letters clear in stating the non-payment of excise duty, thus rejecting the Revenue's argument. The third issue is decided in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and awarded costs to the assessee. The Assistant Commissioner's hasty decision to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund was criticized. The Court directed the Revenue to refund the amount promptly and allowed the collection of costs from the responsible officer. The assessee was instructed to demonstrate their affiliation with SICAL during the refund process.