2019 (2) TMI 1969 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim timely filed; unjust enrichment claim refuted. Duty incidence crucial in enrichment cases. Appeals remanded.

RIDDHI SIDDHI PROCESSORS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., SURAT-I

The Member (J) found the refund claim not time-barred, filed within the required timeframe from the Tribunal's order receipt. Unjust enrichment claim was ... Refund of Excise duty - refund claim was filed beyond one year from the date of Tribunal’s order or not - amount of refund was shown in the balance sheet but the same was not carried forward in the subsequent year - principles of unjust enrichment - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant have filed the appeal within one year from the date of receipt of the order from the Tribunal. Nothing contrary was produced by the Revenue that the refund was filed beyond one year from the date of receipt of the order therefore, the refund filed was within the time limit hence, the refund cannot be rejected on the time bar. Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The original authority has given the categorical finding that the amount of refund shown in balance sheet and the same was also supported by Chartered Accountant Certificate, therefore as per the adjudicating authority the amount was not carried forward only on that ground it cannot be considered that the incidence of duty has been passed on even though it was not subsequently shown in the balance sheet. It has to be seen that whether the incidence has been passed on to any other person. Accordingly, the findings of the original authority that merely because the amount was not carried forward in the subsequent balance sheet the refund is hit by unjust enrichment is not correct. The appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund only on the aspect of unjust enrichment - The appeals are allowed by way of remand to adjudicating authority. Issues involved:Refund rejection on grounds of time bar and unjust enrichment.Analysis:- The appellants' refund was rejected due to being time-barred and unjust enrichment. The claim was deemed late as it was filed over a year after the Tribunal's order, and unjust enrichment was alleged because the refund amount was not carried forward in the subsequent year despite being shown in the balance sheet. The Commissioner (Appeals) focused solely on the legal aspect and did not address this factual discrepancy.- The appellant's representative argued that the refund claim was filed within the stipulated time after receiving the Tribunal's order, citing a letter from the Tribunal. Regarding unjust enrichment, it was highlighted that although the balance sheet and Chartered Accountant certification supported the refund amount, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not investigate this matter, questioning the sustainability of the impugned order.- The Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, maintaining the stance on time bar and unjust enrichment.- After careful consideration and record examination, the Member (J) found that the refund claim was not time-barred, as it was filed within the required timeframe from the Tribunal's order receipt. Additionally, the assertion of unjust enrichment was refuted. The original authority's conclusion that the refund amount not being carried forward in the subsequent balance sheet indicated unjust enrichment was deemed incorrect. The Member (J) emphasized that passing on the duty incidence to another party was crucial in unjust enrichment cases. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the adjudicating authority solely for deciding the refund issue related to unjust enrichment. The appeals were allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority.