2016 (12) TMI 710 - AT - Central Excise

Unjust enrichment - refund claimed on the tax paid on excess collection on the freight on demand - Held that - the appellant could not establish the fact that the incidence of the duty for which refund was sought for has not been passed on to any other person. Therefore the Ld. Commissioner has held that the refund is not admissible in respect of the amount which was not borne by the appellant. Even today when the matter was argued by the Ld. Counsel, he could not produce any evidence as regard unjust enrichment, therefore the appellant is not entitled for the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment itself. - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is entitled to a refund of the excise duty paid on excess freight collection.
2. Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies in this case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant had recovered excess freight above the actual amount paid and was subsequently demanded excise duty on the excess collection. The appellant claimed a refund citing a Supreme Court judgment stating that the excess freight is not liable for duty. The refund claim was rejected based on unjust enrichment, as the duty amount was collected from customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appellant's appeal before the tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that they were not obligated to pay duty on the excess freight collection based on the Supreme Court judgment. The appellant's counsel referenced various judgments to support their claim. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that the duty amount was collected from customers, thus no refund was due.

3. The tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to others. As a result, the tribunal upheld the decision based on unjust enrichment, denying the refund. The tribunal did not delve into the merit of whether duty was payable on the excess freight collection, as the case was decided on the unjust enrichment aspect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the impugned order.