Appellant wins Central Excise duty refund claim under Notification 12/2012-CE, citing exemption & no duty pass-on.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's refund claim for Central Excise duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE, ruling that the duty was not payable due to exemption. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the duty burden was not passed on, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate and evidence showing project cost considerations. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision, allowing the appeal and awarding the refund to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE.
2. Burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE
The case involved the appellant, a company created for a power project, claiming a refund of Central Excise duty paid on goods procured from a related entity, L&T IDPL. The appellant argued that it was entitled to the refund as the goods were exempted from duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment. However, the Tribunal noted that the duty was not payable by the appellant due to the exemption. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision allowing claims for exemption benefits at a later stage. It held that the appellant was justified in claiming the refund as the duty paid was not required. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund based on the exemption notification.

Issue 2: Burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims on the grounds of unjust enrichment, stating that the appellant failed to prove that the duty burden was not passed on. The appellant contended that it had submitted a Chartered Accountant certificate and provided evidence that the duty burden was not transferred. The appellant argued that the project cost was determined considering the exemption and, therefore, passing on the duty burden was not possible. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the project cost was fixed after accounting for the duty exemption. The Chartered Accountant certificate confirmed that the duty amount was not shown as expenses, fulfilling the unjust enrichment condition. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the appellant's refund claim based on the Central Excise duty exemption and rejected the unjust enrichment argument, allowing the appeal against the Commissioner's decision.

---