2008 (10) TMI 545 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns refund denial, stresses new evidence review for natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the decision rejecting refund claims based on unjust enrichment, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh ... Appeal to Commissioner - Refund - Unjust enrichment Issues:Appeals against rejection of refund claims based on unjust enrichment due to non-passing of duty burden to customers.Analysis:The appeals were filed against the rejection of refund claims by the adjudicating authority, alleging that duty was wrongly paid on intermediate products consumed internally. The respondent contended that, as per a CBEC circular, no duty was required. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims citing non-passing of duty burden to customers, invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeals, directing the lower authorities to grant the refund, leading to the revenue's appeal.The revenue argued that the impugned order was erroneous, emphasizing that the price remaining the same did not prove non-passing of the duty burden to customers. They highlighted the late submission of a Cost Accountant's certificate before the appellate authority, citing a tribunal decision where such matters should have been remanded. On the other hand, the advocate for the revenue supported the impugned order, asserting that the Cost Accountant's certificate was appropriately relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals).The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that the Cost Accountant's certificate was presented for the first time before the appellate authority, contravening Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001. Given the central issue of unjust enrichment, the Tribunal concluded that the adjudicating authority should have the opportunity to evaluate this new evidence to determine unjust enrichment conclusively. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh assessment, emphasizing adherence to the principles of natural justice. The appeals were allowed by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for further consideration.