9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 754 - HC - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Whether the refund of duty deposited during investigation is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment - Held that - there are concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) & the Tribunal that that the respondent assessee has paid the Central Excise Duty of ₹ 54,339/and ₹ 39,483/, after clearance of the excisable goods. Moreover, this payment of duty was on insistence of Anti Evasion Branch of the Central Excise Department. Thus, it was held that the burden of duty was not passed on to its customers - no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Whether the refund of duty deposited during investigation is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Analysis: The judgment involves appeals against a common order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The key issue in these appeals is whether the refund of duty deposited during investigation is affected by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise initially upheld the respondent's claim for refund but later, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the refund, stating that unjust enrichment would not apply as the duty was paid much after the clearance of excisable goods. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the burden of duty was not passed on to customers as the payment was made post-clearance on insistence of the Anti Evasion. The appellant/revenue cited Supreme Court decisions on unjust enrichment, but the court found those cases distinguishable due to the specific facts of this case. The court noted that there were concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the duty was paid after clearance of goods and not passed on to customers. The court held that based on these facts, no substantial question of law arises from the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the appeals were summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
