2009 (11) TMI 469 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue's Appeal Dismissed: Limitation & Unjust Enrichment Upheld

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Appellate Authority on both the issues of limitation and unjust enrichment. The ... Refund- Limitation and unjust enrichment - Revenue has come in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-2-2006 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) deciding two refund claims of Rs. 45,65,419/- and Rs. 92,28,482/- relating to two different periods on the ground of limitation as well as bar of unjust enrichment. Revenue contending that refund claim hit by time limit as protest ended when order in appeal passed. Held that - Limitation begins when lis ends and time limit to be counted from 15.4.2005 when matter decided by Supreme Court. Impugned amount shown as receivables in accounts. Impugned order ruling out unjust enrichment sustainable. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal deciding refund claims based on limitation and unjust enrichment.Analysis:1. Refund Claims and Limitation:- The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal regarding refund claims of Rs. 45,65,419/- and Rs. 92,28,482/- for different periods, citing limitation and unjust enrichment as grounds.- The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Respondent had made payments under protest, which were treated as receivables, and the limitation was counted from the date of ending of the litigation before the Apex court.- The Tribunal examined the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries case, emphasizing that limitation begins when the dispute ends, as per Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules 1944.- Relying on the judgments in Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. case, the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's contention on limitation and upheld the decision of the first Appellate Authority.2. Unjust Enrichment:- The Revenue argued that necessary documents proving unjust enrichment were not produced and that the duty burden was passed on to buyers.- The Respondent demonstrated through Chartered Accountant's certificate, Balance Sheet, and Ledger Accounts that the duty burden was not transferred to consumers.- The Tribunal observed that the Appellate Authority had thoroughly examined the evidence, including Ledger Accounts and Balance Sheet, and concluded that the Respondent had not been unjustly enriched.- Following the precedent set by the Tribunal in previous cases, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority on the point of unjust enrichment, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision of the Appellate Authority on both the issues of limitation and unjust enrichment. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents and thorough examination of evidence to support its judgment, emphasizing the importance of payment under protest and the burden of proof in cases of unjust enrichment.