2019 (4) TMI 890

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al manufacturer, which is inclusive of the duty element and hence the refund of wrongly reversed CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the inputs consumed in provision of job worker is hit by unjust enrichment in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the activity of manufacture of metal caps and printed aluminium sheets and availed cenvat credit on inputs such as paints, varnishes, reducer and industrial gas which are used in the manufacture of their final product. The appellants are also doing job work and they have reversed the CENVAT credit on the quantum of inputs used for processing of job work goods for the pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ground that the appellant in their labour bills have collected the landed cost of the inputs from their principal manufacturer, which is inclusive of duty element and hence the refund of wrongly reversed CENVAT credit is hit by unjust enrichment. He further submitted that in terms of Section 11B(2)(c) of the Act, the refund of credit of duty paid on excisabe goods used as inputs in accordance with the rules made, or any notification issued under this Act, will not be hit by unjust enrichment. In support of this submission, appellant relied upon the following decisions:- i. KG Denim Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2017(7) GSTL 422 (Mad.)] ii. CCE, Cus & ST (Appeals), Daman Vs. Amity Thermosets Pvt. Ltd. [2017(348) ELT 112 (Tri. Ahmd.)] ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....be credited to the applicant instead of Consumer Welfare Fund. Further I find that from the ratios of the various decisions cited supra, it clearly emerges that in such a situation, the bar of unjust enrichment will not be applicable. Further I find that in the case of Dura synex Ltd. cited supra, the Division Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai have considered the identical issue and recorded the findings in para 2, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 2.We have heard Shri Uma Shankar, learned DR and Shri Motibhai Patel, learned Consultant. We find that the issue relates to the applicability of the bar of unjust enrichment to refund of input credit. This issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd....