COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in the present case pertains to the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment in the case of refund of duty paid on 'capital goods' used captively. The factual matrix under which the aforesaid issue arises for consideration is taken note of, in short, hereinbelow:

(2.) THE Respondent herein purchased Electro Static Precipitators (ESPs for short) from M/s. BHEL, Ranipet. In terms of Notification No. 78/1990 -CE dated 20.3.1990, the Respondent was entitled to buy the said ESPs at concessional rate of duty which was 5% ad valorem in contra distinction to the normal rate of 15% ad valorem duty. This concession rate becomes payable on the condition that an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) certifies that the goods manufactured are meant for pollution control purpose. The dispute arose as to whether the Respondent was entitled for concessional rate of duty or not. It paid the duty at normal rate and fought for refund of the extra duty paid on the ground that only concessional rate of duty at 5% could have been charged. Respondent succeeded in its attempt before the judicial fora. In view thereof, question of refund of duty paid which was in the tune of Rs. 27,66,970/ -, arose for consideration. The Revenue/Appellant herein, refused to release this refund and rejected the application of the Respondent in this behalf on the ground that the Respondent had passed on the burden and therefore refunding the extra duty paid would result in unjust enrichment to the Respondent. Against that order the Respondent filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal) Chennai, who also dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 21.9.2000. Challenging that order the Respondent filed further appeal before the CESTAT. In this appeal the Respondent has succeeded as vide impugned judgment dated 17.6.2003, the CESTAT has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) thereby directing the refund of the additional, duty paid by the Respondent.

(3.) IT is in this backdrop the issue, as formulated in the first para above, arises for consideration.