Procedural non-compliance cannot defeat refund entitlement for clearances to a 100% export-oriented unit under an exemption notification.

Refund of duty on clearances to a 100% export-oriented unit could not be denied solely for non-compliance with procedural requirements under the exemption notification where the goods were admittedly covered by the notification and CT-3 certificates had been issued. The Tribunal applied its earlier view that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive entitlement when duty was paid by mistake and the underlying exemption coverage is established. It also held that unjust enrichment had to be examined afresh by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision on merits and unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on goods cleared to a 100% export oriented unit could be denied for non-compliance with procedural requirements under the exemption notification, and whether the matter required reconsideration on unjust enrichment as well.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly cleared to a 100% export oriented unit and were covered by the exemption notification, with CT-3 certificates having been issued. The denial of refund rested only on failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Rules 156A and 156B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision holding that where duty was paid by mistake and the substantive entitlement under the notification was otherwise shown, procedural non-compliance should not defeat the claim. It also directed that the question of unjust enrichment be examined afresh by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on merits and on unjust enrichment.

---