Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rebate claims arising from export of excisable goods could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment, and whether the rejection of the appeals on the purported remedy of revision was sustainable.
Analysis: The rebate claims were made under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The authorities below themselves accepted the legal position that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted in rebate or refund cases involving export of goods. The exported goods were cleared through a merchant exporter on the basis of disclaimer certificates, and there was no material to justify the introduction of unjust enrichment as a ground to deny rebate. In these circumstances, the invocation of Section 35B to relegate the assessee to revision did not answer the real issue, namely whether rebate lawfully sanctioned could be disturbed on a ground foreign to export rebate.
Conclusion: The denial of rebate on the ground of unjust enrichment was unsustainable, and the rebate claims were required to be processed and paid.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the rebate sanctioned by the original authority was directed to be upheld and implemented.
Ratio Decidendi: In claims for rebate on export of excisable goods, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply where the statutory scheme under Rule 18 and Section 11B governs the grant of rebate.