1998 (4) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Submission of necessary documents.
2. Admissibility of cash refund under Notification No. 201/79.
3. Application of unjust enrichment provisions u/s 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Summary:

1. Submission of Necessary Documents:
The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the respondent had not filed the necessary documents. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondent had indeed submitted all required documents, including original duty-paying documents. The Tribunal upheld this finding, rejecting the department's claim as untenable.

2. Admissibility of Cash Refund under Notification No. 201/79:
The Assistant Commissioner also rejected the refund claim on the basis that Notification No. 201/79 did not permit cash refunds. The Commissioner (Appeals) overruled this, citing Tribunal decisions that allowed cash refunds or credit adjustments when the benefit of such notifications was wrongly denied by the department. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the respondent was prepared to accept the refund as a credit to their RG 23A Part II account, thus resolving the issue.

3. Application of Unjust Enrichment Provisions u/s 11B(2):
The Assistant Commissioner invoked the provisions of unjust enrichment u/s 11B(2), arguing that the refund should not be granted as the respondent had not proved that the duty amount was not passed on to customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found this ground inapplicable, as the refund pertained to credit of duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing, covered by Clause (c) in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B. The Tribunal concluded that the unjust enrichment provision did not apply, and the respondent was entitled to the refund or credit.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The respondent was entitled to a refund, either in cash or as a credit to their RG 23A Part II account. The Tribunal accepted the respondent's willingness to accept the lower amount quantified by the Assistant Collector, thus finalizing the refund amount.