1997 (9) TMI 196 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excise duty claimed under Notification No. 130/83 - Whether excess duty paid refundable - Applicability of unjust enrichment doctrine.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad, concerning a refund claim of excise duty by the appellants. The appellants contended that they had paid excess duty on sugar cleared during a specific period without claiming the concession under Notification No. 130/83, dated 27-4-1983. The central issue revolved around whether the duty paid in excess, despite a release order from the Directorate of Sugar for additional free sale under the Incentive Scheme of the said notification, was refundable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim, emphasizing that the notification did not authorize collecting a higher rate of duty. The Collector (Appeals) also held that since the appellants did not avail the exemption under the notification during the relevant period, the refund claim was unsustainable as the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyers.

The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the excess duty payment was due to an error regarding the release order and that they were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 130/83. He cited a decision of the Allahabad High Court to support the appellants' position. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the refund claim was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyers. The Revenue also highlighted that the previous decision referred to by the appellants did not address the issue of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Act.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments, the Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not adequately assessed the appellants' entitlement under Notification No. 130/83. The Tribunal noted that a clear determination of the entitlement under the notification and the impact of unjust enrichment was lacking. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for a thorough examination. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to determine the appellants' eligibility for a refund under the notification and, if affirmative, to assess the unjust enrichment aspect in accordance with recent case law. The Tribunal granted the appellants the opportunity to present evidence to support their claim. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further examination and clarification on the issues raised.