Tribunal allows refund of Rs.5,27,132 cenvat credit reversal, rules unjust enrichment doesn't apply under Rule 6(3)(b)

CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal regarding refund claim rejection. The appellant had reversed cenvat credit of Rs.5,27,132/- on inputs used for manufacturing sulphur recovery unit. Lower authorities wrongly re-examined admissibility on merit despite tribunal's earlier ruling that 8% value collection on sulphur by-product was inadmissible. Tribunal held unjust enrichment principles don't apply to payments under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Sample invoices confirmed appellant didn't recover 8% amount from customers. Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. Impugned order set aside, refund allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of refund claim under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Central Excise Rules, 1944. Scope of remand order by Tribunal. Examination of unjust enrichment. Applicability of principles of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products, availed cenvat credit on inputs used in the final product manufacture. They cleared Sulphur, a by-product, at NIL rate of duty, and reversed 8% of the sale value of Sulphur as per relevant rules. A previous Tribunal decision allowed the appellant to claim benefit of Rule 57AD, leading to a refund claim of Rs.1,17,14,846. The refund claim was initially rejected based on unjust enrichment and failure to establish credit reversal on common inputs. The case was remanded for unjust enrichment examination. The appellant contended that the findings on credit reversal went beyond the remand scope. They presented evidence of credit reversal and argued against the applicability of unjust enrichment principles. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings.

The main issue was the admissibility of the refund claim following the Tribunal's previous decision. The Tribunal had earlier held that Sulphur being a by-product did not require 8% reversal, remanding only for unjust enrichment scrutiny. Both lower authorities re-examined credit admissibility, contrary to the Tribunal's focus on non-collection of 8% value, indicating credit reversal. The Tribunal found the appellant had reversed credit and that the refund related to Cenvat Credit Rules, exempting it from unjust enrichment principles. Precedents were cited to support this exemption. The invoices showed non-recovery of 8% from customers, unchallenged by contrary evidence.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

---