9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 627 - HC - Central ExciseRefund claim - unjust enrichment - Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment in Section 11B of the Act is applicable to the facts of the case, having regard to the fact that the amount in dispute charged as excise duty in the debit side of profit and loss account constituted cost of manufacture and absorbed by sale vale depicted in credit side of that account? - matter was referred to Third Member. Held that - The third Member has noted that a sum of ₹ 8,40,120/- had been adjusted by the department from the amount of ₹ 18,75,000/-. This amount had been paid by way of debit entries RG23A and therefore, he has come to the conclusion that if the amount of ₹ 8,40,120/- was adjusted without invoking the bar of unjust enrichment to the said amount. The department was not justified in applying the bar of unjust enrichment to the remaining amount of ₹ 10,34,880/- without there being any cogent material or evidence to support it and without the department having considered the cost structure of goods for that amount. The final decision taken by the third Member that the bar of Section 11B of the Act did not apply in the present case, is correct and justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Determination of unjust enrichment in the case of discrepancies found in the manufacturing process and subsequent settlement by the Settlement Commission. 3. Interpretation of Sections 12A and 12B of the Act in relation to passing on the burden of duty to the buyer. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The primary issue in this case was the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The department filed an appeal against the order passed by the CESTAT, seeking clarification on whether unjust enrichment applied to the case where excise duty charged constituted the cost of manufacture absorbed by the sale value. The central question revolved around whether the assessee had engaged in unjust enrichment. Issue 2: The case involved discrepancies found during a visit by Central Excise officers to the manufacturing premises of the assessee. The discrepancies led to the party debiting certain amounts under protest. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued, and demands were raised against the party. The matter was referred to the Settlement Commission, which settled the demand for a specific amount. The issue of unjust enrichment arose concerning the refund claim made by the assessee, which was rejected on the grounds of indirect unjust enrichment by the Adjudicating Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals). Issue 3: The interpretation of Sections 12A and 12B of the Act was crucial in determining the passing on of the burden of duty to the buyer. The department argued that the burden had been indirectly passed on to the buyer, invoking these sections. However, the third Member of the CESTAT concluded that the duty involved in the refund was not paid at the time of clearance of goods but subsequently during the investigation. This led to the decision that the bar of Section 11B did not apply in this case, as the burden had not been passed on to any other person. The judgment ultimately favored the assessee, dismissing the appeal and upholding the decision that the bar of Section 11B of the Act did not apply in this case. The detailed analysis of the discrepancies, settlement by the Settlement Commission, and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Act formed the basis for this decision, emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case and the absence of evidence supporting unjust enrichment.
|
