2005 (1) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on unjust enrichment principle.

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against the Order-in-Appeal affirming the rejection of their refund claim by applying the unjust enrichment principle. The appellants argued that since the duty at a higher rate was never collected from them and invoices were issued at the department's instance until the finalization of their classification list, unjust enrichment should not apply. They cited various cases to support their contention. On the contrary, the JDR referred to the ratio of law established by the Larger Bench in a specific case. The appellants, engaged in paper manufacturing, filed classification lists under Central Excise Rules, claiming exemption but initially paid duty at a higher rate. Later, their classification list was approved for a lower duty rate, leading to a refund claim.

The Tribunal noted that although duty at a higher rate was not actually collected from buyers, the duty was shown on invoices at the higher rate during the disputed period. The appellants did not inform customers about the correct duty rate, and the issuance of credit notes later was deemed irrelevant. The Tribunal emphasized that the key issue was whether the duty incidence was passed on to buyers, not whether the duty amount was actually received. The legislative intent was to prevent situations where manufacturers claim refunds after issuing invoices at a higher rate and later benefiting from duty exemptions. The Tribunal cited a precedent where even after passing on duty incidence to buyers, issuing credit notes did not alter the unjust enrichment principle's application. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal.