ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. This appeal relates to a refund claim filed by the appellant, relating to duty of excise paid on their product viz. ‘bulb-holder assembly’ for the period 9.10.82 to 30.11.84. There was a classification dispute between them and the department in relation to this product. The original authority, in an order dated 9.11.84, adjudicated this dispute in favour of the assessee classifying the goods under Tariff Item No.68 of the erstwhile Central Excise tariff and rejected the classification proposed by the department under Tariff Item No.61. On the basis of this decision of the adjudicating authority, the assessee filed a claim for refund of duty of Rs.12,76,763/- paid for the aforesaid period. This refund claim was allowed by the original authority as per order dated 26.6.85. Against the orders passed by the said authority on 9.11.84 and 26.6.85, the department preferred appeal to the Collector (Appeals) and the same was allowed as per Order-in-Appeal No.102/86 dated 24.7.86, wherein the subject product was classified under Tariff item No.61 as proposed by the Revenue and the refund claim was rejected. Consequent to Order-in-Appeal No.102/86 dated 24.7.86, the assessee paid back the above duty under protest on 6.3.87 after filing appeal with the Tribunal against the said Order-in-Appeal. The assessee’s appeal was allowed by the Tribunal as per Final Order No.357/95 (D) dated 27.10.95. The department did not prefer any appeal against this order. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued a letter dated 7.2.96 to the assessee calling for evidence of the excise duty having not been recovered from their customers. In their reply, the assessee claimed that they had not recovered the duty from their customers. They further asserted that the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act had no application to the facts of their case and that they were entitled to the benefit of the Tribunal’s order. The Assistant Commissioner rejected these contentions and held that the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment. Accordingly, he credited the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The assessee’s appeal against this decision of the original authority was rejected by the commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No.249/98 dated 4.8.98. Hence the present appeal.
2. Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal’s order dated 27.10.95 in their favour was not appealed against by the department and therefore the department had no option other than granting them the relief consequential to the said order. The bar of unjust enrichment was not applicable to the said refund claim which had been filed and allowed prior to September 1991 inasmuch as the amendments incorporating the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Act were effective only from 8th September 1991. In this connection, ld. Counsel relied on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. v. CCE – 2001 (137) ELT 493 (Tri.- Chennai), wherein it was found that the refund claim had been finally settled before amendment of Section 11 B and accordingly it was held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to the case.
3. Ld. SDR, on the other hand, submitted that, in the present case, the refund claim was finally settled by the Tribunal only on 27.10.95, long after the doctrine of unjust enrichment was incorporated in Section 11 B and therefore the said doctrine was very much applicable to the case. It was further submitted that the claimant had not adduced any evidence to establish that the incidence of duty on the clearances of goods effected during the period of dispute had not been passed on to their customers and therefore the refund claim was hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. Ld. SDR relied on the Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog mandal Ltd. v. CCE – 2005 (67) RLT 225 (SC), wherein it was, inter alia, held that the amended provisions of Section 11B were applicable to pending claims of refund of excise duty.
4. After careful consideration of the submissions, we find that both the classification dispute and the refund claim stood settled in Order No.357/95 dated 27.10.95 of the Tribunal. Insofar as the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act to the refund claim is concerned, the relevant date is the date on which the claim was finally settled. The subject refund claim was finally settled on 27.10.95. Therefore, in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. UOI – 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) vide paragraph 146 thereof, it must be held that the amended provisions of Section 11B are applicable to the appellant’s refund claim. The Tribunal’s decision in Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. (supra) cited by ld. Counsel does not appear to be supportive of the appellant’s case. What was held in that case by the Tribunal relying on the apex Court’s ruling in Mafatlal Industries (supra) was that the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply to matters which had reached finally prior to the date with effect from which the said doctrine was incorporated in Section 11B. In the instant case, as we have already noted, the refund claim reached finality only on 27.10.95 and therefore the above doctrine is applicable. The question now is whether the appellant succeeded in getting over the bar of unjust enrichment. It appears from the orders of the lower authorities that they did not produce any evidence in support of their claim that they had not recovered the duty from their customers. The party has not adduced any such evidence before us either. The lower authorities have noted that it is clear from the records that the assessee actually collected duty from their customers. This finding of fact has not been successfully rebutted by the appellant.
5. For the reasons noted above, we hold that the refund claim is hit by the bar of unjust enrichment and the remittance of the amount into the Consumer Welfare Fund is in order. In the result, the impugned order gets affirmed and this appeal gets dismissed.