2017 (12) TMI 757 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable since the duty has been paid much after the clearance of the goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim partially allowed by Commissioner (A) due to unjust enrichment bar.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Commissioner (A)'s order partially allowing a refund claim of ?31,38,685, where ?6 lakhs were refunded, and the remaining amount was rejected due to the bar of unjust enrichment. The appellant, a manufacturer of hot re-rolled steel products, claimed the refund for pre-deposit of adjudication levies paid. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund, crediting the entire amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner (A) partially allowed the appeal, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the Commissioner (A)'s order was contrary to binding judicial precedent. They contended that the unjust enrichment bar should not apply to pre-deposits made under Section 35F and amounts deposited during investigation. The appellant highlighted that the duty was paid after goods clearance, making the unjust enrichment bar inapplicable. They cited various decisions supporting their stance, including cases where duty payment post-adjudication did not violate unjust enrichment principles.

After reviewing both parties' submissions and the cited decisions, the Tribunal held that the unjust enrichment bar was not applicable in this case since the duty payment occurred after goods clearance. The Tribunal found the appellant's arguments supported by the cited precedents and concluded that the Commissioner (A)'s order was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.

The judgment was delivered on 06.11.2017 by Shri S.S. Garg, Judicial Member, at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE. The appellant's arguments, supported by legal precedents, led to the Tribunal's decision to overturn the Commissioner (A)'s order partially allowing the refund claim due to the unjust enrichment bar.