Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Anglo French Textiles vs Cce, Pondicherry on 9 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI C/165/2003 (Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 36-38/2003 dated 21.03.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Trichy). For approval and signature Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member M/s. Anglo French Textiles : Appellant Vs. CCE, Pondicherry : Respondent
Appearance Shri Krishna Srinivas, Adv., Ms. Meenakshi, Adv., for the appellants Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the respondent CORAM Dr. C. SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 09.07.09 Date of decision : 09.07.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Heard both sides. Both sides agree that this is a case which can be decided by a Single Member Bench, hence the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal.
2. Shri Krishna Srinivas, Adv., appearing for the appellants states that in the first round of the appeal, the Tribunal had allowed the impugned accessories to be assessed along with the machinery and the consequential refund has been sanctioned by the authorities below. However, the authorities below have applied the principle of unjust enrichment and have credited the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellants herein appeal against such action by the authorities below on the ground that the principle of unjust enrichment do not apply in their case first on the ground that the impugned goods were captively consumed and second that the duty were initially paid under protest.
3. Heard the Shri V.V. Hariharan, Ld. JCDR, who supports the impugned order.
4. After hearing the submission from both sides, I find that the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (116) ELT 401 (S.C.), clearly holds that the principle of unjust enrichment equally applies to the case of capital consumption. Similarly in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Birla Corporation Ltd. 2007 (208) ELT 481 (S.C.), the apex Court holds that the principle of unjust enrichment would also apply to cases of payment of duty made under protest. As such, both the cited decisions decided by the apex Court are against the appellants. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned order which is not required any interference. The appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 3