2014 (4) TMI 227 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Whether the Respondent Assessee is entitled to refund claim of the excess duty paid on the discounts which were given to M/s. L & T, but which were not reflected in the invoice in favour of M/s.L & T as the same was not updated in their statement for the period from 1/4/2008 to 26/05/2008 and duty was discharged on such discount amount - Held that - Commissioner (A) has considered all records which were produced before him to justify as to non -passing of the incident of duty by assessee to their purchaser. I have also perused these two certificates which very clearly establish that the appellant was not paid by M/s. L&T for the amount of refund claimed by them. I also find that in the identical situation, the case law cited by ld. Counsel would apply especially and specifically in the cases cited by ld. Counsel in two judgments i.e. Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. (2009 (2) TMI 675 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) will cover the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the order of the First Appellate Authority is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on lack of original invoices and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the rejection of a refund claim by the Appellants. The Appellants had claimed a refund based on discounts not reflected in invoices due to a mistake in updating SAP. A show cause notice was issued, alleging non-supply of original invoices and failure to prove that excess payment was not recovered. The First Appellate Authority allowed the refund claim, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.

The Revenue argued that the Appellants failed to provide original invoices and did not establish non-recovery of excess payment. They contended that the certificates produced were insufficient to prove no unjust enrichment, citing the judgment in Grasim Ind. (Chemical Division) case. On the other hand, the Appellants relied on certificates from a Chartered Accountant and M/s. Larsen & Toubro, asserting that the excess duty was recovered. They referenced various tribunal and court decisions supporting their case.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records to determine if the refund claim for excess duty paid on discounts was valid. The Commissioner (A) had noted the absence of original invoices and raised concerns about unjust enrichment. However, a Disclaimer Certificate from M/s. Larsen & Toubro confirmed non-availing of credit for the duty. The Appellants also provided a credit note memo and payment evidence, demonstrating non-passing of duty to the purchaser.

The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, finding no reason to interfere. It concluded that the order was correct, legal, and supported by the evidence presented. The certificates and documents established that the refund claimed was not recovered from M/s. Larsen & Toubro, aligning with precedents like Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. and Lanco Industries Ltd. The appeal by the Revenue was thus rejected.