2017 (12) TMI 899 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim of excess duty paid - entitlement to interest - finalization of assessment - denial on the ground of unjust enrichment - whether the assessee is entitled to the refund of excess export duty paid against the three shipping bills? - Held that - the authority has examined the test result in detail and considered the eligibility of refund on merit and then transferred it to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no non-compliance of the remand order of Ld. the commissioner (Appeals) in the denovo order. On this aspect, Revenue s Appeal has no merit. Unjust enrichment - Held that - Revenue has not brought any contrary evidence on record to show that the burden of duty claimed as refund has not been absorbed by the assessee-Appellant - appeal of Revenue dismissed. Whether interest is payable to the assessee after expiry of three months from the date of filing the refund claim till the receipt of refund amount by the Appellant? - Held that - undisputedly the assessee-appellant has filed the refund claims on 05.01.2009 and 09.01.2009 and it was sanctioned to them after three months. Thus, they are entitled to interest after expiry of three months from the date of filing the refund claim till the refund amount was given to them - reliance placed in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Versus Union Of India and Ors. 2011 (10) TMI 16 - Supreme Court of India - interest allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of excess export duty paid against three shipping bills.
2. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of Excess Export Duty
The case involved the export of iron ore with a declared Fe content of more than 62%, leading to provisional assessment. Upon testing, the Fe content was found to be less than 62%, resulting in final assessment and a refund claim by the appellant. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the refund claim, but after remand by the Commissioner (Appeals), assessed the goods based on test results and allowed the refund. The Revenue challenged this decision, alleging non-compliance with the remand order and unjust enrichment. However, the Tribunal found that the authority properly examined the test results, considered the refund claim on merit, and correctly transferred the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Additionally, the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly determined that the burden of duty had not been passed on to overseas buyers, as evidenced by Bank Realization Certificates and other documents. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit on both grounds.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Refund
The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in cases involving interest on delayed refunds, stating that interest liability commences after three months from the date of filing the refund claim, not from the date of the refund order. As the appellant filed refund claims in January 2009 and received the refund after three months, they were entitled to interest for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the Assessee's appeal, granting any consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the refund of excess export duty to the appellant and ruled in favor of granting interest on the delayed refund, following established legal principles and precedents set by the Supreme Court.