2018 (6) TMI 1410 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of Education Cess on counter veiling duty - rejection on the ground of limitation and also on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that - In the case in hand the authorities have not returned or rejected the refund claims filed by the appellant which was within time - the refund claim stands filed within one year of the amount paid wrongly supporting documents were filed beyond the period of one year does not make the refund claim hit by limitation - refund cannot be rejected on this ground. Unjust enrichment - Held that - The appellant had filed the refund claim when he had already passed on the amount to his suppliers by raising a bill - It is also undisputed that the credit notes were issued on 10.07.2014 when the Revenue Authorities sought documentary evidence from appellant for processing the refund claims - the findings of the lower authorities on this point are correct - refund rightly rejected on this ground. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim on the grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of refund claims on Customs duty, specifically Education Cess on counter veiling duty. The appellant filed the refund claim online after paying the duty on 13.05.2013/20.05.2013, but supporting documents were submitted on 23.07.2014, well beyond the one-year period from the date of payment. The rejection was based on the grounds of limitation and unjust enrichment, as the appellant had passed on the burden of duty to customers by issuing credit notices. The Tribunal considered the case law precedent where re-submission of refund claims after 13 months was deemed within the stipulated time period. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in concluding that the refund claim was time-barred, as it was filed within one year of the payment. However, the Tribunal upheld the rejection on the basis of unjust enrichment, noting that the appellant had already passed on the amount to suppliers before filing the refund claim, as evidenced by the issuance of credit notes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that while the rejection based on limitation was incorrect and overturned, the rejection on the grounds of unjust enrichment was upheld. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim on the basis of unjust enrichment was deemed correct, and the appeal was ultimately rejected.