2011 (5) TMI 761 - AT - Central Excise

Unjust enrichment - Compounded Levy Scheme - duty liability was reduced - appellant filed a refund claim of the excess duty paid - Revenue holding that the refund claim is hit by bar of unjust enrichment and allowed the Revenue s appeal Held that - appellant had shown that the duty recoverable from the department on 31.03.2001 when the Commissioner has not redetermined the duty liability at that time not the duty was paid under protest appellant has failed to discharge their burden to prove that the duty paid has not formed part of the cost of the final product which they cleared during the impugned period appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal on grounds of unjust enrichment
- Duty liability under Compounded Levy Scheme
- Refund claim for excess duty paid
- Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals)
- Application for Rectification of Mistake
- Show-cause notice for recovery of refund
- Confirmation of recovery by adjudicating authority
- Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the dismissal of their appeal based on unjust enrichment. Initially, the duty liability under the Compounded Levy Scheme was fixed at Rs.39,356 per month, which was later reduced to Rs.16,597. The appellant then filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid during a specific period. The Revenue appealed against the refund claim, citing unjust enrichment. The Tribunal initially held that unjust enrichment applied in this case. The appellant then filed an application for Rectification of Mistake, claiming that the Tribunal did not consider the Profit and Loss account and Chartered Accountant Certificate. The Tribunal, after considering the additional documents, reaffirmed that unjust enrichment applied. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued by the department demanding the refund, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant argued that they had discharged their liability and unjust enrichment did not apply, presenting a Chartered Accountant Certificate and evidence in the Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet. The appellant cited relevant case law to support their position. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the issue had been settled by the Tribunal's previous decision and the appeal should be rejected. After hearing both sides, the judge noted that the Tribunal had already determined that unjust enrichment applied in this case after reviewing the additional documents provided. The judge observed discrepancies in the appellant's actions regarding duty liability and payment, noting that the appellant failed to prove that the duty paid did not impact the final product's cost. Consequently, the judge found no merit in the appeal and rejected it.