TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government entity wins excise duty refund for free energy foods distributed to children in welfare project.</h1> <h3>KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORPN. PRODUCTS LTD. Versus CCE., BANGALORE</h3> KARNATAKA STATE AGRO CORPN. PRODUCTS LTD. Versus CCE., BANGALORE - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 197 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:- Appeal against OIA 738/2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs- Refund claim rejected on grounds of unjust enrichmentAnalysis:1. Background of the case:The appellant, a government-owned entity, manufactured energy foods for a welfare project involving free distribution to poor children. Invoices raised on government departments included excise duty, which was later found to be non-leviable. The appellant sought a refund, initially partially granted, but later rejected on unjust enrichment grounds.2. Arguments by the appellant:The appellant contended that there was no unjust enrichment as the energy food was distributed to government departments for free distribution to the poor. The duty paid was collected from these departments for accounting purposes, and since duty was not payable on the goods, the refund was justified. The transaction was intra-governmental and should be viewed in the context of a welfare project.3. Revenue's stance:The Revenue reiterated the lower authorities' position on unjust enrichment, opposing the appellant's claim for a refund.4. Tribunal's decision:The Tribunal acknowledged the non-leviability of excise duty on the energy food and the appellant's payment of the duty to the Central Government. It emphasized that the issue at hand was whether there was unjust enrichment. Considering the appellant as a State Government unit, wholly owned by it, and the nature of the welfare project involving free distribution to poor children, the Tribunal found no unjust enrichment. The duty burden was borne by the State Government, and any refund would return to the State Government's exchequer. Therefore, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, ruling that there was no unjust enrichment in the refund claim scenario due to the unique circumstances of the case involving a government-owned entity and a welfare project for free distribution to poor children.
TaxTMI 