2019 (5) TMI 715 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - assessee has received the duty amount from M/s ITC ltd which in turn passed on to the consumer - HELD THAT - The first question turns on facts. Therefore, we do not think that the same deserves any consideration as substantial question of law. Unjust enrichment - finalization of the provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of CEA - HELD THAT - The second question is covered by a decision of this Court in THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-III COMMISSIONERATE. VERSUS M/S. AMRUTANJAN HEALTH CARE LTD. 2018 (5) TMI 309 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT where it was held that refund arising out of the finalization of provisional assessments during the period February 1985 to April 1995 need not pass the test of unjust enrichment as the amendment to sub-rule 5 of Rule 9B came into force only w.e.f. 25.06.1999. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the decision of the CESTAT in allowing the assessee's appeal based on a Supreme Court decision is correct.
2. Whether the bar of 'unjust enrichment' applies in the case, considering the finalization of provisional assessment post-amendment to Rule 9B(5).

Analysis:

1. The first issue raised in the appeal questions the correctness of the CESTAT's decision in allowing the assessee's appeal solely based on a previous Supreme Court judgment without considering crucial aspects. The appeal challenges whether the assessee, who received the duty amount from another entity, disentitling them from a refund passed on to consumers, should be granted the refund. The argument revolves around the interpretation of legal provisions and the application of precedents to the specific circumstances of the case.

2. The second issue pertains to the application of the principle of 'unjust enrichment' in the context of the case. The CESTAT's decision is questioned for not applying the bar of unjust enrichment, as per the amendment to Rule 9B(5), despite the finalization of provisional assessment post-amendment. The appeal highlights the significance of the amendment and its implications on the entitlement to a refund, emphasizing the need to adhere to established procedures as mandated by the law.

3. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal aspects involved in both issues. The court opines that the first question, being fact-specific, does not merit consideration as a substantial question of law. However, the second question is addressed by referring to a prior decision of the Court in a similar matter. The Court cites specific paragraphs from the previous judgment to support the dismissal of the appeal, aligning with the reasoning and conclusions drawn in the earlier case.

4. Ultimately, the Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the decision based on the precedent and legal interpretations provided in the previous judgment. The judgment concludes without imposing any costs on either party, and any pending miscellaneous applications related to the appeal are deemed closed as a result of the dismissal. The comprehensive analysis and application of legal principles ensure a thorough examination of the issues raised in the appeal, resulting in a definitive decision by the Court.