TIOL-DDT 2687 · Thursday, 17 September 2015 · story 5 of 6

Central Excise - Refunds - Unjust Enrichment - Whether Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as amended, applies to cases where though an order has been passed directing refund, implementation of the order is pending?

The High Court has answered the question in favour of assessee holding that since the proceedings under the old Section 11B of the Act had attained finality, the amended provision of Section 11B of the Act, in particular, proviso to sub-section (1) shall not apply. In other words, the principle of 'unjust enrichment' which was introduced by way of amendment of Section 11B in the year 1991 shall not be attracted in the instant case as the proceedings under the unamended Section stood finalised with the direction in the application filed under unamended Section 11B of the Act to refund the excise duty that was paid by the respondent/assessee. The High Court has held that merely because implementation of the aforesaid order was pending, in the sense that direction to refund the amount had not been carried out, the authority could not go into the question of unjust enrichment by invoking the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act that had been introduced by that time by way of amendment in Section 11B of the Act. Therefore, it was not open to the concerned officer, who was only supposed to carry out the implementation of the order, to go into the question as to whether there was any unjust enrichment on the part of the assessee or not.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd - 2015-TIOL-204-SC-CX.