By TIOL News Service

BANGALORE, APRIL 13, 2018: PURSUANT to the Tribunal order in their favour, the Assessee filed a refund claim in respect of the amount debited earlier.

The Original authority held that the claimant had not furnished the documentary evidence to prove that they have not passed on the duty amount to their customers or they have not capitalized the amount paid. Accordingly, refund was sanctioned but credited to Consumer Welfare Fund based on the principles of unjust enrichment.

Hence, present appeal before the CESTAT.

Assessee submitted that there is no dispute that they reversed the credit at the time of investigation, therefore, the refund cannot be rejected based on unjust enrichment.

In support, the following decisions were relied upon -

- CCE, Bangalore Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2006-TIOL-1325-CESTAT-BANG

- Maheshraj Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2014-TIOL-734-CESTAT-AHM

- SKF Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore - 2016-TIOL-3063-CESTAT-BANG

- Wipro Fluid Power Ltd. Vs. CC, Bangalore - 2011-TIOL-262-CESTAT-BANG

- CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Pricol Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-515-HC-MAD-CX

The Bench observed that in the decisions cited it has been consistently held that any amount deposited during the investigation will be in the nature of pre-deposit made by the assessee and principle of unjust enrichment will not be applicable in such cases.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2018-TIOL-1173-CESTAT-BANG)