1. In the month of September 2000, the appellants had paid excess duty of Rs. 3,78,352/- on a certain quantity of detergent powder, which were removed to M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (M/s. HLL, for short). Such removal of goods to M/s. HLL was for and on behalf of M/s. Vashisti Detergents Ltd. (M/s. VDL for short), for whom the appellants had manufactured the said goods on job-work basis. The above clearance on payment of duty was made on 13.9.2000. The appellants filed a refund claim for the above amount on 30.7.2001 and the original authority rejected the same on the ground of unjust enrichment. The first appellate authority also held that the refund claim was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. Hence the present appeal.
2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the orders of the lower authorities are sustainable in terms of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decisions in the cases of S. Kumar's Ltd. v.Commissioner and Grasim Industries v. Commissioner . The appellant's counsel has stated that, though under the invoice issued by them to M/s. HLL at the time of the above clearance of goods, they had passed on the incidence of duty to M/s.
HLL, the duty burden was taken back later by way of adjustments against the job charges payable by M/s. VDL for the period October 2000 to August 2001. On this basis, she has argued that the above refund claim was not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. This claim has been contested by learned SDR, who has referred to a letter dated 12.7.2001 of M/s. VDL, which indicates that, till that date (12.7.2001), the burden of duty which had already passed on to the buyer of the goods was not taken back. Learned SDR has relied on the aforesaid decisions of the Larger Bench.
3. M/s. S. Kumar's were job-workers for M/s. Dhvani Terrifabs Export (P) Ltd. (M/s. DTE, for short). They had received raw material (grey fabrics of cotton) from M/s. DTE and, after processing the same, supplied the processed fabrics to M/s. DTE. An amount of duty of Rs. 7,08,520/- which was paid by M/s. S. Kumar's on the processed fabrics cleared to M/s. DTE during the period 5.3.1997 to 30.8.1997 was actually not payable, there being an exemption notification applicable to the goods. Hence a refund claim was filed on 4.9.1997. This claim was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment, by the adjudicating authority and, later on, by the first appellate authority. The appeal preferred to the Tribunal was also-dismissed by the Larger Bench holding that, where the incidence of duty had passed on to the buyer at the time of clearance of the goods, any claim for refund of such duty was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment and that this legal position was not altered by the fact that, subsequent to the filing of the refund claim, the duty amount was realized by the claimant from the buyer of the goods. This decision was followed by the same Bench in the case of Grasim Industries(supra). In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the incidence of duty on the goods in question had passed from the appellants to the buyer at the time of clearance of the goods arid that the duty; burden was not taken back till the date of the refund claim. Subsequent adjustments between the appellants and M/s.
HLL or M/s. VDL did not alter the operation of the doctrine of unjust enrichment on the refund claim in question. Hence the refund claim under consideration is comparable to those considered by the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the cases of S. Kumar's (supra) and Grasim Industries (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.