2025-VIL-2151-CESTAT-CHE-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Finalisation of provisional assessment, Refund of excess duty paid, Bar of unjust enrichment, Government-controlled prices - Appellant is a manufacturer of Para Chloro Meta Xylenol (PCMX), which is subject to statutory price control under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 - For the period 2009-2010, the appellant resorted to provisional assessment under the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, due to fluctuations in the exchange rate of the imported raw material. Upon finalization of the provisional assessment, it was determined that the appellant had paid excess duty, and the appellant filed refund claims - Whether the refund of excess duty paid by the appellant is barred by the principle of unjust enrichment – HELD - The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply in the present case, as the prices of PCMX were fixed by the government under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995. The bar of unjust enrichment is inapplicable when the price of the goods is fixed or regulated by the Government - Further, the PCMX manufactured by the appellant was stock-transferred to its own sister units, and in such cases, the question of passing on the incidence of duty does not arise. The Tribunal in Pearl Polymers v. CCE, Bangalore and Banzali Engineering Polymer Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal, held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is inapplicable to stock-transfer transactions - The appellant is eligible for the refund of excess duty paid. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page