2020 (3) TMI 999 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of Excise duty - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT - Mr. Walve and Mr. Ochani, appearing for the respondents, very fairly state on instructions of Mr. Bhanu Jain, Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, that the petitioner s grievance in the present facts is justified. This as the impugned order is contrary to and in defiance of the orders of the Tribunal which have attained finality. The impugned order dated 30th April, 2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, is quashed and set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment contrary to Tribunal's orders.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition challenging an order rejecting a refund claim of ?36,36,915 on the basis of unjust enrichment under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the rejection was in defiance of binding decisions of the Tribunal, specifically an order from October 2017 directing the adjudicating authority to await the outcome of a Revenue appeal. Despite the Revenue withdrawing the appeal in August 2018, the refund claim was rejected contrary to the Tribunal's order from January 2014.

The Respondent's counsel sought time for instructions, leading to an adjournment of the petition. Subsequently, the Respondents acknowledged the justification of the petitioner's grievance, conceding that the impugned order was against the finality of the Tribunal's orders. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 30th April 2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise.

Moreover, it was stated by the Respondent's counsel that the petitioner's refund application would be processed within eight weeks in compliance with the Tribunal's orders from January 2014 and October 2017. As a result, the petition was disposed of in accordance with the above terms, providing relief to the petitioner by ensuring compliance with the Tribunal's directives and setting aside the erroneous order rejecting the refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment.