2002 (1) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of set-off of duty.
2. Denial of refund claim based on unjust enrichment.
3. Interpretation of Section 11B(2) in relation to refund of duty paid on excisable goods.
4. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions and Supreme Court rulings.

Issue 1: Recovery of set-off of duty
The proceedings were initiated against the appellant for recovery of set-off of duty due to non-compliance with Notfn. No. 201/79. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, dropped the demand for the period beyond five years but confirmed it for the remaining period. The appellant appealed before the Tribunal, which allowed the appeal on the point of time bar. A reference application by the Revenue was also dismissed by the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Denial of refund claim based on unjust enrichment
After the dismissal of the reference application and allowing of the appeal by the Tribunal, the appellant filed a refund claim for the duty deposited during the appeal. The claim was rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment by the Asst. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the duty was deposited during the appeal and the provisions of unjust enrichment do not apply in such cases.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 11B(2) in relation to refund of duty paid on excisable goods
The appellant argued that Section 11B(2) provides an exception for refund of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs, as per rules or notifications. They contended that the authorities were unjustified in rejecting the refund claim based on unjust enrichment, citing previous tribunal decisions supporting their argument.

Issue 4: Applicability of previous tribunal decisions and Supreme Court rulings
The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions, including one related to refund of duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing final products, to support their case. They argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly applied a Supreme Court decision, which was not relevant to the current case. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.