Excise duty refund not hit by unjust enrichment where records proved no passing on and protest endorsements supported timeliness

Refund of excise duty was upheld because contemporaneous records, including invoices, ledger extracts, RT-12 returns, RG 23A records and the Chartered Accountant's certificate, showed that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers. The appellate record also supported the finding that the certificate was corroborated by other documents, so the claim was not hit by unjust enrichment. The refund was also treated as a duty-paid-under-protest claim because protest endorsements appeared on gate passes, RG 23A records, PLA and RT-12 returns, and there was no requirement for similar endorsements on commercial invoices. The claim was therefore not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee established, on the basis of the records and other evidence, that the excise duty refund claimed was not hit by unjust enrichment; and (ii) whether the refund claim was barred by limitation in view of the protest endorsements.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee established, on the basis of the records and other evidence, that the excise duty refund claimed was not hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund claims were examined against the invoices, ledger extracts, RT 12 returns, RG 23A records and the Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Commissioner (Appeals) had verified the material and found that the duty paid under protest was higher than the duty recovered from customers. The appellate record also showed that the certificate was not treated as the sole basis but was supported by contemporaneous documents. The Revenue did not dispute these factual findings in the appeals.

Conclusion: The assessee successfully proved that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, and the refund was not barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation in view of the protest endorsements.

Analysis: The appellate authority found that the assessee had made protest endorsements on the relevant gate passes, RG 23A records, PLA and RT 12 returns. It further held that there was no requirement to make similar endorsements on commercial invoices under the applicable rules. On that basis, the claim was treated as a duty-paid-under-protest claim and not as a time-barred claim under the refund provision.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The Departmental appeals failed because the refund claim was supported by evidence negating unjust enrichment and was also within time as duty paid under protest.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim succeeds when contemporaneous records prove that the duty incidence was not passed on and the duty was paid under protest in accordance with the relevant procedure.

---