2017 (10) TMI 432 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Excise Duty Refund Appeal Allowed, Commissioner's Decision Overturned

M/s. Cipla Ltd Versus CCE, Mumbai

M/s. Cipla Ltd Versus CCE, Mumbai - TMI Issues:1. Refund claim based on provisional assessment.2. Short payment and excess payment of excise duty.3. Time-barred refund claim.4. Unjust enrichment.5. Rejection of CA certificate as additional evidence.6. Discrepancy between refund claim and balance sheet.7. Applicability of unjust enrichment in provisional assessment cases.Refund Claim Based on Provisional Assessment:The appellant paid duty under provisional assessment, leading to findings of both short payment and excess payment of excise duty upon final assessment. The appellant discharged the differential duty for short payment but filed a refund claim for the excess payment. The adjudicating authority held part of the claim as time-barred but sanctioned the remaining amount. The Revenue appealed against the refund sanction, alleging unjust enrichment.Short Payment and Excess Payment of Excise Duty:The appellant rectified the short payment of duty upon final assessment but sought a refund for the excess payment made. The adjudicating authority approved part of the refund claim while rejecting a portion as time-barred. The Revenue challenged the refund on grounds of unjust enrichment, leading to the appeal.Time-Barred Refund Claim:A portion of the appellant's refund claim was deemed time-barred by the adjudicating authority, resulting in a partial sanction of the refund. This issue was raised by the Revenue in their appeal against the sanctioned refund.Unjust Enrichment:The core contention revolved around the concept of unjust enrichment, with the Revenue arguing that the appellant would be unjustly enriched by the refund. The appellant, supported by legal counsel, presented arguments and relied on various judgments to establish that unjust enrichment did not apply in cases of provisional assessment adjustments.Rejection of CA Certificate as Additional Evidence:The Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the CA certificate submitted by the appellant as additional evidence, questioning its validity and timing. The appellant contended that the certificate was not new evidence but a reflection of the balance sheet data already presented, emphasizing its relevance to the case.Discrepancy Between Refund Claim and Balance Sheet:The Commissioner(Appeals) highlighted discrepancies between the initial refund claim amount and the figure reflected in the appellant's balance sheet. The appellant revised the refund claim amount, leading to questions regarding the accuracy and consistency of the financial data presented.Applicability of Unjust Enrichment in Provisional Assessment Cases:The issue of whether the principle of unjust enrichment applied to cases involving adjustments in provisional assessment was extensively debated. The appellant argued against the application of unjust enrichment in such scenarios, citing relevant judgments to support their position.In the final analysis, the Member (Judicial) set aside the Commissioner(Appeals)'s decision and allowed the appellant's appeal. The Member emphasized that the refund amount was correctly reflected as receivable in the balance sheet, dismissing the concerns raised regarding unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority's thorough examination of the unjust enrichment issue based on the balance sheet data was deemed sufficient, leading to the conclusion that the appellant had not been unjustly enriched. The rejection of the CA certificate as additional evidence was also overturned, highlighting its relevance to the case.