2018 (6) TMI 630 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Excise duty paid - Benefit of N/N. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 not availed - manufacture of PSC pipes for use in water supply scheme - benefit of notification was denied on the ground that exemption certificate from the District Collector was not produced at the time of clearance - denial of refund on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - Held that - Notification nowhere requires that such certificate should be available with the assessee at the time of clearance itself - Otherwise also there are umpteen number of decisions laying down that subsequent production of certificate, which is in the hands of the other public authority, would relate back to the clearances and as such if the condition of production of certificate is satisfied subsequent to the clearance, the benefit has to be extended. Time limitation - duty paid under protest - Held that - The assessee had staked their claim to the benefit of the notification in the said letter and have also requested the authorities to refund the duty paid by them. Though the said letter is not in the nature of the format of the statutory refund claims to be filed by an assessee, we fully agree with the appellate authority that the same has to be considered as a protest letter, in which case, the limitation would not be applicable - demand not barred by limitation. Unjust enrichment - Held that - It could not be said that the respondent has charged and collected separately the excise duty element from their buyer. He has also referred to the assessee s stand and the various letters written between them and the buyers to conclude that the duty element has not been included in the tender rate and the same was not collected from the State Government - Revenue has not able to produce any evidence to the contrary so as to rebut the findings arrived at by the appellate authority. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:

1. Claim for exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 for PSC pipes used in water supply scheme.
2. Denial of refund claim on grounds of time bar and unjust enrichment.
3. Requirement of exemption certificate from District Collector at the time of clearance of goods.
4. Application of limitation period for refund claim.
5. Unjust enrichment analysis based on contracts with customers.

Exemption Claim under Notification No. 06/2006-CE:
The case involved the appellant's claim for exemption under Notification No. 06/2006-CE for PSC pipes used in water supply schemes. The notification required a certificate from the District Collector, which the appellant applied for after clearing goods on duty payment. The issue was whether the subsequent production of the certificate could relate back to the clearances. The Tribunal cited precedents to support that if the condition of the certificate's production is satisfied post-clearance, the benefit should be extended, rejecting the Revenue's objection.

Time Bar and Protest Letter:
Regarding the time limit for the refund claim, the appellate authority noted that the appellant's letter dated 19.01.2008 indicated their entitlement to exemption and requested a refund, implying payment under protest. The Tribunal agreed that the letter should be considered a protest letter, exempting it from the limitation period. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that a detailed representation was not necessary for a letter to be considered a protest.

Unjust Enrichment Analysis:
The issue of unjust enrichment was analyzed based on the contracts between the appellant and their customers. The appellate authority concluded that the rates charged were inclusive of all taxes, indicating that the excise duty was not separately charged or collected. The Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Revenue to counter this conclusion, supporting the appellate authority's decision.

Conclusion:
After thorough discussions and analysis, the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of fulfilling conditions for exemptions, the significance of protest letters in refund claims, and the need for evidence to challenge findings on unjust enrichment.