Judgment:
2. Two refund claims relating to the period 13.06.1984 to 07.01.1985, filed by the appellants, were rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise as per Order-in-Original dated 18.06.1991.
That order was passed on grounds including unjust enrichment. The decision of the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund claims on the ground of unjust enrichment was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal filed by the party against the order of the Collector (Appeals) was allowed by this Tribunal as per final Order No. A/1563/95-NB dated 21.12.1995, wherein it was held that the refund claims could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. Notwithstanding such decision of the Tribunal, the Department issued show-cause notice in relation to the very same refund claims to the appellants on 22.04.1997 directing them to show cause why the refund claims should not be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The party contested the notice by pleading res judicata. In adjudication of the dispute, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner passed order dated 24.09.1997 rejecting the two refund claims on the ground of unjust enrichment. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal filed by the aggrieved party. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal.
4. The refund claims in question relate to a period prior to the amendment of law whereby the provisions of unjust enrichment were incorporated in Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
When the dispute over the refund claims in question came up before this Tribunal, the Tribunal by order dated 21.12.1995 clearly held that the refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. That decision was rendered, having regard to the fact that the provisions of unjust enrichment, incorporated under Section 11B only subsequent to the period of dispute, had no application to the case of the claimants.
The Department's application for rectification or mistake, filed in respect of the Tribunal's order dated 21.12.1995 was dismissed. The Department did not choose to prefer any appeal against the Tribunal's order dated 21.12.1995 which thus became final and binding.
Nevertheless, the Department issued the subject SCN, raising the same old plea of unjust enrichment and both the lower authorities upheld the plea, constraining the party to approach this Tribunal once again.
5. As rightly submitted by ld. Advocate for the appellants, the present SCN proceedings are hit by the rule of res judicata inasmuch as the question whether the refund claims could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment was conclusively settled between the parties by this Tribunal as per Final Order dated 21.12.1995. The SCN (which has ultimately led to the present appeal) was issued after the Final Order dated 21.12.1995 of the Tribunal (holding that the refund claims could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment) attained finality in terms of Section 35C(4) of the Act. The SCN did not raise any ground other than unjust enrichment either. Therefore, the SCN proposing to reject the refund claims on the ground of unjust enrichment is illegal and the same is set aside. Consequentially, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) are also set aside. The present appeal is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants.