Tribunal allows refund claim in unjust enrichment case, citing statutory duty invoice requirements.

The tribunal set aside the order denying the refund claim based on unjust enrichment, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. It held that mentioning the duty in invoices as per statutory requirements in a cum-duty sale scenario does not imply unjust enrichment when it is not a case of duty payment and recovery. The tribunal relied on a High Court decision, concluding that the doctrine of undue enrichment does not apply in such circumstances. The appellant's argument that prices were fixed inclusive of duties and sold accordingly was accepted, leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Refund claim denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, faced a dispute regarding the requirement to pay Additional Excise Duty (AED) during the impugned period. The appellant showed AED in their invoices as per statutory requirement, charging the gross amount from customers. The appellant contested the liability of AED, which was later held in their favor. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim for the AED paid, which was sanctioned but transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to the alleged unjust enrichment. The Revenue argued that since the duty amount was shown in the invoices and recovered from customers without giving them credit, the appellant failed to pass the bar of unjust enrichment. The Revenue also highlighted the lack of satisfactory evidence regarding clearances made in DTA, questioning the entitlement to refund claims for direct and sample sales.

The appellant contended that they sold goods inclusive of all duties to sister units or in the open market, mentioning the AED paid in the invoices as required by law. They argued that as the prices were fixed inclusive of duties, the bar of unjust enrichment should not apply to their case. The appellant cited a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in support of their argument. After considering both sides, the tribunal focused on the key issue of whether mentioning AED in invoices, as per statutory requirements, in a cum-duty sale scenario implies unjust enrichment. Referring to the High Court's decision in a similar case, the tribunal concluded that the doctrine of undue enrichment does not apply when duty declaration in invoices is a statutory requirement and not a case of duty payment and recovery. Relying on the precedent set by the High Court, the tribunal held that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply in this case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---