TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dispute over refund upheld by Tribunal based on unjust enrichment principles</h1> <h3>M/s. Lohia Polyester Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat</h3> M/s. Lohia Polyester Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat - TMI Issues involved:1. Whether the refund sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner is wrong due to unjust enrichment.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the refund of a specific amount sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, challenged by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals). The key issue was whether the appellants had proven that they did not pass on the duty burden, thus impacting the eligibility for the refund based on the principles of unjust enrichment.The appellant argued that the duty amount was a pre-deposit and became eligible for a refund after succeeding in subsequent litigation. They contended that the refund pertained to the pre-deposit amount only, and hence, unjust enrichment principles should not apply in their case.On the contrary, the Revenue's Authorized Representative highlighted the statutory provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They emphasized that the burden of proving non-passing on the duty incidence lay with the appellants, as per Section 11B(2). The Representative argued that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the duty burden was not transferred, necessitating the refund amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had collected charges from customers without paying Central Excise duty. The appellants debited the duty amount through specific entries, indicating it was a duty liability payment, not a pre-deposit. The first appellate authority found that the appellants did not provide concrete evidence to prove non-passage of duty burden, as required to nullify unjust enrichment principles. Referring to relevant legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.Consequently, the Tribunal found no flaw in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and dismissed the appeal, affirming the refund amount's credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund as per statutory provisions.
TaxTMI 