Refund of Rs.25 Lakh Deposited During Investigation: CESTAT Remands Matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for Decision on Unjust Enrichment [Read Order]
The tribunal noted that while the refund was sanctioned following an earlier CESTAT order, it was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund
![Refund of Rs.25 Lakh Deposited During Investigation: CESTAT Remands Matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for Decision on Unjust Enrichment [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/09/2041848-refund-service-tax-address-mismatch-taxscan-1.webp "Refund of Rs.25 Lakh Deposited During Investigation: CESTAT Remands Matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for Decision on Unjust Enrichment [Read Order]")
The Bangalore Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded a matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on unjust enrichment, in a case involving a refund of ₹25 lakh deposited during investigation.GSEC Limited,appellant-assessee,had challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 04/2022 dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs...
The Bangalore Bench of Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded a matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on unjust enrichment, in a case involving a refund of ₹25 lakh deposited during investigation.
GSEC Limited,appellant-assessee,had challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 04/2022 dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. The matter pertained to the refund of Rs.25,00,000 deposited during the investigation.
Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here
Pursuant to the investigation, a show-cause notice was issued, and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, adjusting the amount deposited earlier. Dissatisfied with the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which allowed the same on 13.03.2020, granting consequential relief as per law.
Following the tribunal's order, the appellant filed a refund application. Though the refund was sanctioned, it was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The assessee counsel submitted that the earlier objection raised before the Commissioner (Appeals) was only about the authority to credit or recredit amounts from the Consumer Welfare Fund, and not about the Commissioner’s power to decide on unjust enrichment.
The departmental representative argued that since the assessee had raised a jurisdiction issue, the matter was not decided on merits and the appeal was dismissed.
A single member bench of D.M.Misra (Judicial Member) found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the refund claim on its merits, especially about unjust enrichment.
Since the issue was not addressed, the tribunal sent the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide if the refund amount had been passed on to the consumer or not, following the rules of unjust enrichment.
Because the case was old, the appellate tribunal asked for a decision within three months and said natural justice must be followed.
Therefore the appeal was allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
