2014 (11) TMI 672 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal granted for refund claim with interest deduction. CENVAT credits, double payment, unjust enrichment principles emphasized.

PEARL POLYMERS LTD Versus CCE, BANGALORE (ADJN)

The tribunal allowed the appeal, stating the appellant was entitled to the refund claim, subject to the deduction of interest liability. The decision ... Denial of refund claim - CENVAT Credit - appellant had taken the credit of BCD wrongly at the time of receipt of the machine and reversed it when it was pointed out - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- Goods were cleared to their own unit once again the credit was reversed. The question of unjust enrichment does not arise as submitted by the learned counsel. Because the appellant s action amounted passing of burden to one self. Therefore it cannot be said that the duty liability has been passed on to someone else. Therefore the denial of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment cannot be sustained. There is also no dispute that the goods were cleared to their own unit. Surprisingly in the findings of the Commissioner (A), another ground has been taken that the appellants have cleared the goods under the scheme of area-based exemption which is also totally wrong. Appellant’s unit which cleared the capital goods was not availing in area based exemption and in fact it was the receiver who was availing the area based exemption and therefore could not have taken the credit of duty paid on the capital goods. This is another ground submitted by the learned consultant in support of the refund claim. Even though the capital goods were transferred to their own unit even that unit could not take the credit - appellant is eligible for the refund claim - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Availment of CENVAT credit on incorrect components.2. Double payment of duty on capital goods.3. Denial of refund claim by lower authorities.4. Unjust enrichment and duty liability passing.5. Eligibility for refund claim and interest liability deduction.Analysis:Issue 1: The appellants availed CENVAT credit on Basic Customs Duty (BCD), Cess on BCD, Countervailing Duty (CVD), and Basic Excise Duty (BED) along with relevant cess on a Biaxial Orientation Stretch Blow Molding Machine. However, it was found that they wrongly availed the credit of BCD and Cess, leading to an excess credit amount. The appellant acknowledged this error during an audit and accepted the excess credit, which was equivalent to specific amounts. The appellant also removed the capital goods to another unit under applicable rules, but issues arose regarding the correct availing of CENVAT credit components.Issue 2: The appellant, during internal audit, discovered that they had paid BCD and Cess twice on the same machine. This double payment occurred once during a departmental audit and again when the goods were transferred to another unit. The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess amount paid, which was rejected by lower authorities.Issue 3: The denial of the refund claim by lower authorities was based on various grounds, including the incorrect availing of credits and the double payment of duties. The appellant's claim for refund was challenged, leading to the appeal before the tribunal.Issue 4: The tribunal considered the concept of unjust enrichment and duty liability passing. It was argued that the appellant's actions did not result in passing the duty liability to another party, as the burden was on the appellant itself. Therefore, the denial of refund on the grounds of unjust enrichment was deemed unsustainable.Issue 5: After examining the facts and submissions, the tribunal found that the appellant was eligible for the refund claim. The tribunal also noted that interest liability arising from the reversal of the wrong credit should be deducted from the refund amount. The appellant's failure to pay interest when reversing the credit for the first time was highlighted, and it was determined that this interest liability should be considered in the refund calculation.In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim, subject to the deduction of interest liability. The decision highlighted the correct availing of CENVAT credits, the double payment issue, and the application of unjust enrichment principles in the context of duty liability passing.