2006 (1) TMI 37 - HC - Central Excise

Central Excise Unjust enrichment - Appellant filed refund claim on the ground that duty was paid under protest and proved that duty had not been passed on to the customers CESTAT s order require no interference No substantial question of law arises for consideration of High Court

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the claim for refund is barred by limitation due to non-compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Whether the respondent is entitled to a refund without unjust enrichment based on the Chartered Accountant's certificate and Profit and Loss Account.

Analysis:
1. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing components for irrigation systems, cleared goods without duty payment under an exemption. However, after a visit by Departmental officers, it was found that certain pipes were not eligible for the exemption. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed a duty demand and imposed a penalty. The respondent appealed, and the CEGAT allowed the appeal, leading to a refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim as time-barred for not following Rule 233B procedures. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the refund, stating duty was paid under protest, and unjust enrichment did not occur. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing duty paid under protest and no unjust enrichment.

2. The Revenue argued that the respondent did not follow Rule 233B procedures, making the refund claim time-barred. They also questioned the reliance on the Chartered Accountant's certificate and Profit and Loss Account without independent verification. However, the Tribunal found the duty was paid under protest, rejecting the Revenue's argument. Regarding unjust enrichment, it was established that the duty burden was not passed on to customers, as evidenced by the Chartered Accountant's certificate and Profit and Loss Account. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on these findings.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, stating no substantial questions of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing duty paid under protest and the absence of unjust enrichment. The judgment affirms the entitlement of the respondent to the refund and the compliance with relevant legal procedures.