M/S. HINDUSTAN METAL PRESSING WORKS versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 404 · Decided: 27-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

). 
A 
M/S. HINDUSTAN METAL PRESSING WORKS 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE 
FEBRUARY 27, 2003 
B 
_(M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944; Sections II-A & JJ-D: 
Exemption Notification No.2188-Refund of excise duty .to assessee for 
C a certain period after approval of classification list-Assistant Collector 
__ , 
ordering recovery of the amount refunded on the principle of unjust 
enrichment-Affirmed by the Appellate Authorities/Tribunal-On appeal, held, 
since assessee had neither filed any application for refand of excise duty nor 
collected from buyer any amount in excess of duty determined on such excisable 
D goods, principle of unjust enrichment not attracted-Central Excise Rules-
Rule 173-1. 
Appellant-assessee had removed certain excisable goods at the 
existing rate of duty awaiting approval of such goods under classification 
list for claiming benefit of exemption notification thereon. Revenue 
E authorities granted refund of excise duty for certain period after approval 
of such classification list. However, Assistant collector, after issuing a show 
cause notice, confirme_d the demand for recovery of the refunded amount 
of duty for the same pi:riod applying the principle.of unjust enrichment. 
Appellate authorities as well as Tribunal rejected the appeals of the 
F assessee. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the assessee that since refund order was based 
on assessment and there was no error in the assessment, the principle of 
unjust enrichment would not be applicable. 
On behalf of the Revenue, it was submitted that assessee had 
G continuously collected excise duty at enhanced rate in spite of exemption 
on such goods and paid the same to Revenue with the intention to get the 
same by way of refund and thereby enriched itself with the public money, 
thus, Revenue authorities rightly recovered the same amount of excise duty 
from the assessee. 
H 
404 
).\ 
-
HINDUSTAN MET AL PRESSING WORKS r. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE [SHAH, J.] 405 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The assessee has not filed any application under Section 
11-B of the Central Excise and Salt Act for refund of the excise duty paid 
A 
by him. Thus, there is no question of application of principles of unjust 
enrichment as incorporated in Section 11-8 of the Act. Other relevant 
provision, viz., Section 11-D of the Act inter alia provides that every person B 
who is liable to pay duty under the Act or the Rules made thereunder, 
and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined 
and paid on any excisable goods under the Act or the rules made 
thereunder from the buyer of such goods i~ any manner as representing 
duty of excise is required to forthwith pay the amount so collected to the C 
credit of the Central Government. If such amount is not paid to the credit 
of the Central Government, the Central Excise Officer can serve a notice 
requiring him to show cause why the said amount should not be paid by 
him to the credit of the Central Government. In the instant case the 
amount was refunded to the assessee, hence this provision is also not 
attracted. Past finalized transaction could not be reopened by holding that D 
refund was erroneously granted as there was unjust enrichment. 
[407-B-EJ 
Serai Keila Glass Works Pvt. ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna, 
[1997] 4 SCC 641J; Ma/at/a/ Industries Ltd and Ors. v. Union of India and 
Ors., [1997] 5 sec 536 and Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals (P) ltd. v. E 
Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, (2002) 9 SCC 416, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.1999 of the Central Excise, 
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. Nos. El F 
7791191-B I in F.O. No. 606-607 of 1999-B. 
Vikram Nankani, Ramesh Singh, Ms. Divya Roy. Ms. Vanita Bhargava 
and Ms. Bina Gupta for the Appellant. 
N.K. Bajpai, Hemant Sharma and 8. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
SHAH, J. Mis Hindustan Metal Pressing Works removed the excisable 
goods at the effective rate of duty awaiting approval of their classification list H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A No. 2/88 in which they claimed benefit of exemption Notification No.175/ 
86-CE dated 1.3.1986. In pursuance of the approval of the classification list 
on 21.6.1988. The Range Superintendent granted the refund o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.