2018 (8) TMI 77 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Mumbai Refund Claim Appeal: Unjust Enrichment and Duty Passing Incidence

The appeal before the CESTAT Mumbai involved a refund claim for duty paid twice on imported finished formulations. The appellant argued against unjust ... Principles of Natural Justice - proper discussion of submissions made by appellant not done - Refund claim of duty paid twice - denial on account of unjust enrichment - Held that:- The adjudicating authority has not discussed in detail aspect of the each and every piece of evidence produced by the assessee in support of their claim that the refund is due to them and its burden has not been passed on to the customers. In absence of proper reasoning on the documents/evidences, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) disputing the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the hurdle of unjust enrichment has not been passed by the assessee. Also, from the record it is found that a report from the Range Superintendent was obtained by the Adjudicating Authority wherein the Range Superintendent had reported in favour of the assessee. Such report has also not been handed over to the assessee. It is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority, to examine all the evidences in detail and record a specific finding on the issue of passing of the incidence of duty paid and claimed as refund by the assessee - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/80/M-III/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II.- Refund claim for duty paid twice on imported finished formulations.- Unjust enrichment and burden of duty passing on to customers.- Lack of detailed reasoning in adjudicating authority's order.- Appeal by Revenue disputing unjust enrichment.- Report from Range Superintendent not provided to the assessee.- Remand for detailed examination of evidence and specific finding on duty passing incidence.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai involved a refund claim for duty paid twice on imported finished formulations, namely Seretide Accuhalers and Seretide Evohalers. The appellant claimed they bore the excess duty and it was not passed on to customers due to MRP-based assessment. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the refund, but the Revenue appealed, leading to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal, citing unjust enrichment concerns.The appellant's advocate argued that the adjudicating authority had found no unjust enrichment, but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision without detailed reasoning. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the burden of duty passing on to customers was not adequately addressed by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted the lack of detailed discussion on evidence in the adjudicating authority's order and the absence of providing the Range Superintendent's report to the assessee.In light of these deficiencies, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of all evidence. The adjudicating authority was instructed to provide a specific finding on the passing of duty incidence and to ensure the appellant receives a copy of the Range Superintendent's report. Both parties agreed to expedite the process due to the case's prolonged duration, suggesting a four-month timeframe for disposal. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for remand to address the issues of unjust enrichment and duty passing incidence conclusively.