2016 (11) TMI 481 - HC - Central Excise

Refund - principles of unjust enrichment - section 35H(4) of Central Excise Act 1944 - whether the rejection of refund on the ground of undue enrichment that duty was paid on intermediate products and question of passing on incidence of duty to customers does not arise is justified? - Held that - in order to attract plea of unjust enrichment under section 11B(1) Reference made by Tribunal to Section 11B(2) proviso (c) is not justified as the said provision is not attracted. However refund was wrongly denied to Assessee and to that extent concurrent findings in favour of Assessee has rightly been recorded by CCE(A) and Tribunal. Hence the ultimate order of Tribunal is justified and warrants no interference. Both the questions are thus answered in favour of Assessee and against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct application of provisions under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 to a case of refund of duty paid on captively consumed goods.
2. Application of provisions under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 to a case of refund of duty paid on captively consumed goods not corresponding to credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs.

Issue 1:
The judgment dealt with the correct application of provisions under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to a case involving the refund of duty paid on goods that were captively consumed. The case revolved around the classification of products by the Assessee, who sought a refund of Central Excise Duty based on the classification determined by the Tribunal. The Assessee claimed that since the goods were consumed in the manufacturing process and classified under Chapter 39, they were exempt from duty. The Assistant Commissioner initially rejected the refund claim citing "unjust enrichment" as the duty paid on intermediate products was considered part of excise duty. However, the CCE(A) and Tribunal later allowed the refund, emphasizing that the duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs did not fall under the bar of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal's order was upheld, stating that the denial of refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment was unwarranted as it had already been decided in favor of the Assessee by the CCE(A).

Issue 2:
The second issue involved the application of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, to a scenario where the refund of duty paid on captively consumed goods did not correspond to the credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs. The Tribunal's order granting the refund was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that it would result in unjust enrichment to the Assessee. However, the Tribunal justified the refund under proviso (c) to Section 11B(2) of the Act, which allows refunds without the bar of unjust enrichment when relating to excisable goods used as inputs. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessee was entitled to the refund as the duty was paid at a specific rate, and the amount refundable was calculated accurately. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that the denial of refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment was unjustified, especially when the issue had already been settled in favor of the Assessee by the CCE(A). The Court held that the Assessee was rightfully granted the refund, and the Tribunal's order was justified and required no interference.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The judgment clarified the correct application of provisions under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in cases involving the refund of duty paid on captively consumed goods, emphasizing that the denial of refunds on the grounds of unjust enrichment was unwarranted when previously decided in favor of the Assessee.