Order date – 18th April 2023

Parties – Carrier Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III

Facts –

• The appellant, CARRIER AIR CONDITIONING AND REFRIGERATION LTD., are engaged in the manufacturing of excisable goods, specifically Air Conditioners, Chillers, and their parts. The appellant paid central excise duty on their products cleared to their depots on stock transfer basis under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
• The appellant has filed the refund claims amounting to Rs. 7,01,241/- and 6,11,387/- via applications dated 09.02.2017 and 10.09.2007.
• Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned both the refunds in favour of the appellant via order-in-original, allowing re-credit of these amounts in the cenvat credit account of the appellant.
• However, the department filed appeals against the said order of the adjudicating authority before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), and the same were allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
• Aggrieved by the order of Ld. Commissioner, present appeal is filed. 

Issue –

• Whether the appellant has been unjustly enriched? 

Order –

• The Tribunal has observed that the appellant has paid duty at a higher value while clearing the goods from the factory to the depots and the said goods were sold to the customers at a lower price and the original authorities after verification of all the documents have found that the appellant entitled to refund of the excess duty paid by them.
• Further, once it is established that the goods were sold from the depot to the customers at a lower price as is the case in the present case then it is clear that the higher duty has not been collected by the appellant and hence there is no unjust enrichment.
• It is observed that the Ld. Commissioner has not given any credence to the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant wherein it is stated that they have verified the books of accounts which reveal that the excess at the time of clearance, which was actually paid has not been passed on to the customers. 
• Further, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has travelled beyond the remand order passed by the Tribunal. The lower authorities can not travel beyond the remand order passed by the higher authorities.
• It is observed that in the appellant’s own case for the previous period, the appellants have been granted the refund. 
• Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and hence set aside.