2017 (5) TMI 867 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissed appeals due to unjust enrichment principle in central excise case. Upheld decision based on precedents.

The appeals were dismissed as the Member found that the appellant, acting as a jobworker, had already received the entire central excise duty amount from ... Refund of excess amount of excise duty paid - job-work - It is the case of the appellant that they discharged excess duty on the lubricating oil manufactured and cleared on behalf of M/s Valvoline Cummins Ltd. - principles of unjust enrichment - Held that: - Since the entire central excise duty for which refund has been claimed is received by them from the principal manufacturer, the lower authorities are correct in coming to a conclusion that bar of unjust enrichment applies in this case - refund rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Refund of excess excise duty paid due to discrepancy in assessable value calculation and application of unjust enrichment principle.Analysis:The appeals were filed against Order-in-Appeal No.US/196/RGD/2012 dated 28.03.2012. The issue revolved around the refund of excess excise duty paid by the appellant for lubricating oil manufactured and cleared on behalf of another company. The appellant continued to consider the old maximum retail price (MRP) for excise duty calculation even after the other company revised the MRP. The appellant filed multiple refund claims, arguing that the excess duty payment was due to a software issue. However, both lower authorities applied the unjust enrichment principle, stating that the duty incidence was passed on to the other company.During the proceedings, the appellant submitted a Chartered Accountant (C.A.) Certificate, sample invoices, and ledger accounts to support their claim. They argued that since the end buyers did not avail credit, there was no unjust enrichment. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) cited precedents where similar issues were discussed, emphasizing that once amounts are collected from the principal manufacturer, unjust enrichment does not occur, leading to rejection of refunds.The Member (Judicial) carefully considered the arguments from both sides and found that the appellant acted as a jobworker for the principal manufacturer. It was undisputed that the appellant received the entire central excise duty amount from the principal manufacturer after dispatching the final product. As the duty amount claimed for refund was already received from the principal manufacturer, the Member concluded that the lower authorities correctly applied the unjust enrichment principle. Referring to previous judgments, including ones passed by the same Member, the conclusion was drawn that the impugned orders were legally sound and free from defects, leading to the rejection of the appeals.