2018 (9) TMI 1195 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - N/N. 67/1995 dated 16.03.1995 - Unjust Enrichment - Held that - The question of applicability of Notification 67/1995 for exempting duty on end cuttings after the Brass circles are formed does not arise because the end cuttings were also be covered by the basic notification for exemption on brass articles. Further the Original Authority has already recorded that the duty was paid under protest. Unjust enrichment - Held that - The entire proceedings were silent on the matter related to unjust enrichment and in any case the learned Counsel has shown few of the invoices on which there is a rubber stamp affixed stating that the the duty was not recovered from buyer . Therefore, in such a case the principle of unjust enrichment will not be applicable. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund of excise duty under Notification No. 67/1995 for trimmed/untrimmed sheets and circles of Copper and Brass intended for handicrafts or utensils.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Copper and Brass products, filed a claim for refund of duty amounting to ?1,14,62,128 under Notification No. 67/1995 for the period from 12.04.2004 to 09.11.2008. The duty was paid under protest as the appellants believed they were entitled to duty exemption under specific notifications. The Original Authority initially denied the refund, stating that the duty was paid to satisfy conditions of a different notification. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging this decision.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of refund, citing a previous decision that duty paid to satisfy conditions for exemption may not be refundable. The appellant then approached the Tribunal, arguing that the Commissioner's inference was incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of a Supreme Court decision regarding the distinction between Copper and Brass as different goods.

The Tribunal, after considering both parties' arguments and examining the record, referred to the Supreme Court's ruling that Copper and Brass are distinct items. As Brass was exempted under specific notifications, the question of applying Notification 67/1995 for exempting duty on end cuttings did not arise. The Tribunal noted that the duty was paid under protest, and there was no mention of unjust enrichment in the proceedings. The appellant provided invoices showing duty not recovered from buyers, indicating no unjust enrichment. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the refund was admissible to the appellant, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This judgment clarifies the applicability of duty exemptions under specific notifications, the distinction between different goods, and the principle of unjust enrichment in excise duty refund cases.