2011 (7) TMI 355 - AT - Central Excise

Classification - Refund - unjust enrichment - Time barred - capital goods in question were captively used and hence there was no question of passing the incidence of duty to any other person - The only question to be addressed is whether the protest registered by ICL (manufacturer/supplier) at the time of payment of duty on the conveyor belts supplied to WCFL and ECFL can be relied on by the latter in the context of claiming refund of the excess duty - Their only contention is that the payment of duty under protest by the manufacturer/supplier would constitute a ground for them to claim refund of the excess amount of duty without time-bar - Even if it is assumed to the contra the decision would go in favour of the Revenue for want of evidence against the bar of unjust enrichment - appeals of the Revenue are allowed

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjourning appeal based on pending cases before apex court and Bombay High Court.
2. Refund claims rejected on grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment.
3. Dispute regarding assumption of duty burden under protest for refund claims.
4. Applicability of unjust enrichment on capital goods used for captive consumption.
5. Interpretation of time-bar for refund claims in relation to duty payment under protest.

Issue 1:
The Tribunal declined adjournment requests for an appeal by M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. (WCFL) based on pending cases before the apex court and Bombay High Court, as no evidence showed the issues were identical. Both parties were represented by the Revenue's learned SDR.

Issue 2:
WCFL and M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECFL) purchased conveyor belts from M/s. International Conveyor Ltd. (ICL) assuming duty burden. ICL paid duty under protest due to a classification dispute, later settled in their favor by the apex court. Refund claims by WCFL and ECFL were rejected for being time-barred and unjust enrichment.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal considered whether WCFL and ECFL could claim refund based on ICL's duty payment under protest. The buyers contended they could claim refund without time-bar due to the manufacturer's protest. However, the Tribunal cited case law favoring the Revenue, stating buyers cannot rely on the manufacturer's protest to claim refund without time-bar.

Issue 4:
WCFL and ECFL argued against unjust enrichment on capital goods used for captive consumption, citing a Bombay High Court decision. However, the Revenue contended that uniformity in price does not negate passing on the duty burden, supported by case law.

Issue 5:
The fundamental issue was whether the refund claims were time-barred. The Tribunal found the claims were filed beyond the limitation period and rejected the argument that buyers could claim refund based on the manufacturer's protest. The appeals by the Revenue were allowed, restoring the original authority's rejection of refund claims on the ground of time-bar. The decision on unjust enrichment was not examined due to the time-bar issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeals by WCFL and ECFL, allowing those by the Revenue based on the time-bar issue. The decision highlighted the inability of buyers to claim refund based on the manufacturer's duty payment under protest and emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period for refund claims.