2012 (5) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Refund - limitation - unjust enrichment - appellant have deposited the amount under protest on differential value of the goods cleared by them to their sister unit/group companies Held that - duty incidence has not been passed on to their sister concern/group companies by producing relevant certificates from the Range Superintendent and from the balance sheet as the same is shown as receivable from the Government. Therefore, the appellant are able to pass the bar of unjust enrichment, on that ground also their refund claim is maintainable, appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on limitation and unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing stranded wires, filed a refund claim after paying differential duty on goods supplied to sister units. The department disputed the valuation of captively used goods, leading to payment under protest and subsequent refund claim. The lower appellate authority denied the claim as time-barred and unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that Section 11B does not apply as no duty demand was confirmed, citing relevant case law. They demonstrated that the duty amount was not appropriated and provided certificates showing no credit taken by sister units. The appellant contended that the unjust enrichment bar does not apply, supported by the annual report showing the amount as a contingent liability. The department argued for the application of Section 11B based on the issuance of supplementary invoices and cited case law supporting the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

The Tribunal found that the amount deposited by the appellant was not appropriated as duty, distinguishing it from cases where deposits were treated as duty. They noted that the appellant proved no duty burden was passed on to sister units, supported by certificates and financial records. Referring to case law, the Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 11B were not applicable due to the lack of appropriation of the deposited amount as duty. They also found that the appellant successfully demonstrated no unjust enrichment, making their refund claim maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower authority's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis considered the specific circumstances of the case, application of relevant legal provisions, and supporting evidence provided by the appellant to allow the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim on grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.