Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 134 - AT - Central ExciseRefund claim - whether claim filed by the appellant is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that:- It is apparently not possible to point out as to out of which exact fund the Central Excise Duty was paid to the Government. The appellants derived their income mainly from supply of electricity. They also apparently get subsidy from the Government. As already noted, these two funds/ income have no linkage to the excise duty paid under protest by the appellant. We find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed the appellants would be deemed to have discharged the onus of absence of unjust enrichment, if excise duty payment was proved to be out of the appellants own fund. We are unable to appreciate such observation. The duty has been paid by the appellants apparently from their fund. There is no identity of different funds and individual records for different receipts for a one to one co-relation as to which money has gone to which expenditure. Such stipulation will be impracticable. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sescot Sheet Metal Works Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai (2015 (4) TMI 386 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) held in the case of State owned Undertakings which are funded, controlled and monitored by the State Government, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not arise. Based on the analysis and discussion as above, we find that there is no case for unjust enrichment against the appellant both on the reason of the appellant being a State Organization and also on merit of not passing on the duty to another person. - Decided in favour of assessee
|