2019 (5) TMI 1283 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of amount paid under protest - undervaluation - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - It is an undisputed fact that the payment was made under protest by the assessee during investigation and a perusal of one of the earliest Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2014 clearly reflects appropriation of payments made by the appellant towards the duty liability and the said order also incorporates the major payment being recovered by way of appropriation, except perhaps penalty. There are no disputes with regard to the CA certificate furnished by the assessee, on which the adjudicating authority has tried to make an issue. But on the other hand, the appellate authority has not discussed about it - The case of the adjudicating authority that the duty was passed on to the appellant s unit at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, does not hold water since while issuing the remand order, the Commissioner (Appeals) himself in his order dated 03.01.2017 has clearly observed that the amounts which were claimed as refund were relating to the amounts paid after clearance of goods and not passed on. Apparently, there is no challenge against this finding by the Revenue nor has the impugned order found anything wrong with the above findings. Thus, the case of the assessee that it has not passed on the duty element stands established - there is no scope to allege unjust enrichment. The appellant is entitled for refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of undervaluation by the appellant.
2. Confirmation of demands in Orders-in-Original.
3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2014.
4. Dispute over findings in the Order-in-Appeal.
5. Application of principles of unjust enrichment.
6. Dispute over duty passed on to the appellant's unit.
7. Entitlement of the appellant for refund.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought a refund, challenging the allegation of undervaluation and demands confirmed in Orders-in-Original. The appeal stemmed from the remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2014, which was subsequently set aside.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) attempted to disprove the findings of the remanded order, leading to a debate on the permissibility of changing opinions. The appellate proceedings were constrained by the directions of the Order-in-Appeal dated 03.01.2017, emphasizing the limitations on revisiting previous findings without higher forum intervention.

3. The issue of unjust enrichment arose concerning payments made under protest during investigation. Citing legal precedents, the judgment highlighted that such deposits do not fall under unjust enrichment principles, especially when made during adjudication proceedings or investigations.

4. Disputes over duty passed on to the appellant's unit were resolved in favor of the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that the duty elements were not transferred to the unit as claimed, leading to the conclusion that there was no unjust enrichment, thereby entitling the appellant to a refund.

5. The judgment emphasized the importance of honoring final decisions and the binding nature of findings unless challenged or overturned by a higher authority. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per the law.