2024 (6) TMI 1002 - AT - Central Excise

Bar of unjust enrichment - onus to prove on appellant - no enquiry by Revenue with the customers to substantiate that customers have received the machine/equipments or not - HELD THAT - The facts are not in dispute that the appellant had issued 559 invoices during the period January 2010 to March 2010 for clearance of machines and equipments thereof. Revenue has not made any enquiry with the customers to substantiate their case that against these invoices the customers have received the machine/equipments or not? No enquiry was made with the transporters to ascertain the truth. Moreover, the goods lying in their factory premises were seized by the Revenue for which respondent claims that these goods pertains to the seized invoices. Further, as invoices were seized by the appellants and has not been released to the respondent, therefore, the respondent was compelled to issue fresh invoices for clearance of the seized goods on payment of duty. In that circumstances, it is the duty of the appellant to ascertain whether on these 559 invoices which have been seized whether the said goods have been cleared from the factory of the respondent or not, which the appellant failed to do so. As the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) passed the order after verifying all the issues regarding the clearance of the goods in question and payment of duty thereof and considering the Affidavits filed by the customers as well as transporters gate passes etc., the respondent has paid duty twice for the same goods. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly sanctioned the refund claim subject to verification of the issue of bar of unjust enrichment by the adjudicating authority - there are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether the respondent has passed the bar of unjust enrichment in a case involving payment of duty twice for the same goods.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Background and Facts:
The respondent, engaged in manufacturing heavy machines and equipment, issued 559 invoices for clearance of goods between January 2010 to March 2010. These goods were seized by the Revenue, and the respondent claimed to have paid duty twice due to the seizure. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify unjust enrichment.

2. Department's Argument:
The department contended that the Commissioner(Appeals) exceeded authority by giving observations on a case already adjudicated. They argued that no extra excise duty was self-assessed or paid for the respective months, and no cancellation of invoices was notified, questioning the refund.

3. Respondent's Defense:
The respondent argued that they paid duty twice, supported by documents like Gate Register, Transporter Affidavit, and Customer Affidavit. They claimed the seized goods were later cleared with fresh invoices, justifying the refund.

4. Court's Observation:
The Court noted the lack of verification by the Revenue regarding the clearance of goods against the 559 invoices and the seizure of goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) found evidence supporting the respondent's claim of double duty payment, including affidavits and correlating invoices.

5. Decision and Ruling:
The Court upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision to sanction the refund, pending verification of unjust enrichment. It was held that the respondent paid duty twice for the same goods, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the judgment affirmed the refund claim based on the evidence presented by the respondent, emphasizing the need for verification of unjust enrichment by the adjudicating authority.