2015 (10) TMI 1834 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that - Cenvat credit which was adjusted against the confirmed duty demand was in excess of the amount which was required to be adjusted towards payment of duty. We further find that the appellant is simply seeking restoration of credit which had been adjusted in excess. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that restoration of Cenvat credit in the account of the appellant will only restore the position to the extent of credit which was not required to be adjusted. Thus, when viewed from the angle of continuous utilization of credit, we find that unjust enrichment is not invokable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim directed to Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Applicability of unjust enrichment principle when duty is paid subsequently on clearance of goods.
Restoration of Cenvat credit in excess amount adjusted against confirmed duty demand.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing the refund claim to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had cleared Dyed Yarn (Daffodil) by paying Central Excise duty, out of which a portion was adjusted against Cenvat credit. The appellant sought a refund of a specific amount from the unavailed Cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a partial refund through Cenvat credit. In the appeal, the appellants cited precedents to argue against the application of the unjust enrichment principle when duty is paid subsequently on goods clearance.

During the hearing, the Revenue reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals) findings and argued that the unjust enrichment principle would apply even if Cenvat credit is utilized after goods clearance. The Tribunal considered the contentions and noted that the Cenvat credit adjustment exceeded the required amount for duty payment. It was observed that the appellant was only seeking the restoration of excess credit adjustment. The Tribunal concluded that restoring the Cenvat credit would rectify the situation to the extent of the surplus adjustment, thus rendering the unjust enrichment principle inapplicable in this scenario. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the restoration of the specific Cenvat credit amount.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by allowing the restoration of the Cenvat credit in favor of the appellant. The decision emphasized that the restoration of credit would rectify the excess adjustment and not lead to unjust enrichment. The judgment highlighted the specific circumstances of the case where the appellant sought the return of Cenvat credit that was not required to be adjusted against the duty payment, ultimately leading to the entitlement of the appellant for the restoration of the credit amount.