2004 (10) TMI 242 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund application due to late filing under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Contention of provisional pricing and unjust enrichment in refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The first set of appeals (E/901-903/04) dealt with the rejection of a refund application filed beyond the time limit specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the sales were made against provisionally agreed prices, but the tribunal found no application for provisional assessment by the appellant. As per Rule 7B of the Central Excise Rules, specific requirements must be met for provisional assessments. Since there was no application or order for provisional assessment, the claim that original duty payments were provisional was not valid. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeals were rejected.

2. The second set of appeals (E/747-48/2004) involved the Revenue's challenge against refund claims based on unjust enrichment. The appellant, a manufacturer of LPG cylinders, cleared goods at provisional prices subject to later adjustments as per contractual terms. The tribunal noted that excess payments towards price and duty were adjusted by the buyer from subsequent payments, indicating that the higher duty was not passed on to the buyer. Citing a previous decision related to a similar case, the tribunal held that the refunds were not hit by unjust enrichment. The appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected based on the similarity of facts to the earlier case. The tribunal found that the appellant's case aligned with the decision in the Universal Cylinders Ltd. case, where the issue of unjust enrichment was similarly addressed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the rejection of refund applications due to late filing under Section 11B and dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding the unjust enrichment issue in refund claims, citing previous decisions and contractual terms as key factors in the judgments.