2015 (10) TMI 1636 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that - Amount in question was shown in the balance sheet as recoverable. This was also certified by the Chartered Accountant. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. In our considered view, it is clearly evident from the balance sheet that the amount was not recovered from any other person. Then, it will be held that the applicant fulfilled the principles of unjust enrichment. No reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on grounds of unjust enrichment under Compounded Levy Scheme.

Analysis:
The case involved the respondents engaged in processing Man Made Fabrics Hot Air Stenters under the Compounded Levy Scheme. They filed a refund claim which was rejected by the Adjudicating authority citing unjust enrichment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the adjudication order based on the argument that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers. The appellants supported their claim with a certificate from a Chartered Accountant stating that the duty paid had not been debited to the Manufacturer/Trading Account nor recovered from the parties. They contended that the refund claims had attained finality post the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) or at least after the order of the Tribunal. The appellants argued that the refund claims could not be rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment as the burden of duty had not been passed on to customers, supported by the amount shown as recoverable in their balance sheet.

On reviewing the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), it was noted that the amount in question was indeed shown in the balance sheet as recoverable, a fact certified by the Chartered Accountant. The Revenue did not dispute this fact in their grounds of appeal. The Tribunal concluded that since the amount was not recovered from any other person, it indicated that the principles of unjust enrichment had been fulfilled by the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In essence, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the crucial aspect of unjust enrichment, where the balance sheet evidence and the certification from the Chartered Accountant played a pivotal role in establishing that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. This case underscores the importance of thorough documentation and financial evidence in refund claims under the Compounded Levy Scheme, emphasizing the need to demonstrate that unjust enrichment did not occur to succeed in such claims.