Appellant's Refund Claim Allowed: Unjust Enrichment Rejected

The appellant filed a refund claim for excess duty paid due to a calculation error, seeking refund on all invoices issued. Both authorities rejected the claim citing unjust enrichment. The appellant provided evidence of non-recovery from buyers through correspondences and certificates. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that if the appellant did not receive the excess amount from buyers, unjust enrichment cannot be presumed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim for excess duty paid, unjust enrichment, evidence of non-recovery from buyers.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to a refund claim of Rs. 1,51,272/- (BED) + Rs. 3025/- (Education Cess) filed by the appellant due to a calculation error resulting in excess duty payment. The appellant claimed refund on all invoices raised, contending non-recovery from buyers. Both authorities ruled against the appellant citing unjust enrichment as the hurdle, requiring evidence of non-recovery from buyers.

The appellant's counsel highlighted correspondences with purchasers indicating non-availment of Cenvat credit and payment excluding excess amount. The appellant relied on precedents like Techno Rubber Products, Peacock Industries Ltd., Alstom Ltd., among others, to support their case.

The respondent argued that mere letters from purchasers are insufficient to prove non-collection of duty by the appellant, asserting that raising invoices implies duty collection.

Upon review, it was found that the appellant issued 5 invoices with wrongly calculated excise duty, all paid by the appellant. The purchaser, in a letter, certified correct duty payment and non-availment of Cenvat credit. Further, the purchaser confirmed payment excluding excess duty, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate.

The Revenue did not challenge the purchaser's certificate, and the Tribunal cited legal precedents to rule in favor of the appellant. It was established that if the appellant did not receive the amount from suppliers, unjust enrichment cannot be assumed. Relying on relevant judgments, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---