2015 (1) TMI 123 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Duty paid under protest - Issue decided in favour of assessee by Tribunal - Refund barred by limitation - Held that - On perusal of the record, this Tribunal held that the respondent are not required to pay duty on notional interest for the advances received from the buyers on 17-10-2003 and refund claim was filed on 1-12-2003 and same was filed within time as issue has been settled by the Tribunal on 17-10-2003. As per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. 2004 (1) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein the Hon ble Apex Court held that time limit for refund claim starts from the date when the issue has been settled. Therefore, I hold that refund claim filed by the respondent was within time. Further, I find the issue of unjust enrichment has been examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) and has held that the Chartered Accountant certificate has been produced and gate passes and invoices produced by the respondent to prove that duty has been paid under protest and has not been recovered from the buyers. I hold that the respondent is also able to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Time limitation for filing refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Application of unjust enrichment in the case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Time Limitation for Refund Claim
The case involved a dispute regarding the time limitation for filing a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent had procured advances against goods supplied during 1987-92, and demands were confirmed by the Revenue, which were paid under protest. The Tribunal settled the issue on 17-10-2007 in the respondent's favor. The respondent filed the refund claim on 1-12-2003. The Adjudicating Authority initially held the claim as time-barred. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim, considering it was filed within one and a half months of the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in MRF Ltd. case, held that the time limit for a refund claim starts from the date when the issue is settled. Consequently, the Tribunal found the respondent's claim to be within the prescribed time limit.

Issue 2: Application of Unjust Enrichment
The second issue revolved around the application of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined this aspect and accepted the Chartered Accountant certificate along with gate passes and invoices provided by the respondent as evidence that the duty paid under protest was not recovered from the buyers. Consequently, the Commissioner held that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case. The Tribunal concurred with this finding, stating that the respondent successfully demonstrated that the duty paid was not passed on to the buyers, thereby meeting the requirements to overcome the unjust enrichment bar.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision allowing the refund claim, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit. The Tribunal also disposed of the cross objection filed by the respondent, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.