2000 (2) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants duty refund for first period but denies for second period due to unjust enrichment doctrine.

The Tribunal granted the appellants a refund of Rs. 1,40,113.06 for the first period as duty payment was evidenced through debit entries. However, the ... Refund - Unjust enrichment Issues involved: Whether refund can be sanctioned without producing duty paying documents and whether refund is hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.Refund Claim Pertaining to Period 1-3-1970 to 30-9-1974:- Appellants disputed inclusion of freight charges in assessable value.- Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal for not including transportation cost in assessable value.- Refund claim rejected for non-production of duty paying documents and unjust enrichment.- Appellants divided refund claim into two parts.- First part: Rs. 1,40,113.06 for period 1-3-1970 to 16-2-1972.- Department issued DD-2 demanding differential duty, paid by appellants.- Principle of unjust enrichment not applicable when duty paid separately.- Second part: Rs. 14,06,177.45 for period 17-2-1972 to 30-9-1974.- Freight charges included in assessable value as per Department's order.- No opportunity given to show duty not passed on to customers.Counter Arguments:- Assessee must produce duty paying documents to prevent duplicate refunds.- Documents submitted to Department kept for specified period and destroyed later.- Production of duty paying documents essential for refund claim.- Doctrine of unjust enrichment applicable for second period refund claim.Judgment:- Tribunal acknowledged duty paid for first period through debit entries in P.L.A.- Presumption of duty passed on to buyer not attracted in this case.- Non-production of documents not a hindrance to refund for first period.- Appellants entitled to refund of Rs. 1,40,113.06 for first period.- Remaining refund claim not paid due to duty incidence passed on to customers.- Appellants failed to provide evidence to counter unjust enrichment bar.- Second part of refund claim denied based on principle of unjust enrichment.Conclusion:- Appeal disposed of with refund granted for first period but denied for second period based on unjust enrichment principle.