Unjust enrichment remand must be reasoned, and the appellate authority should decide refund evidence afresh.

CESTAT, Mumbai held that a Commissioner (Appeals) should not remand a refund claim on unjust enrichment without dealing with the evidence already produced by the assessee. The appellate authority had accepted the revenue's position without discussing the material showing that the duty burden had not been passed on, and gave no reasons why that evidence was insufficient. The proper course was to examine the record and decide the issue afresh, making further inquiry only if demonstrably necessary. The remand was therefore not sustained, and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision after considering all evidence and hearing both parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the refund matter for fresh examination of unjust enrichment without dealing with the evidence already produced by the assessee.

Analysis: The appellate order was found to have accepted the revenue's contention without any discussion of the evidence relied upon by the assessee. The record indicated that the assessee had produced material to support its case that the duty burden had not been passed on, and the remand order did not explain why such material was insufficient. In these circumstances, the appellate authority was expected to consider the evidence itself and decide the issue afresh, including any further inquiry it considered necessary, rather than remand the matter without reasons.

Conclusion: The remand order was not sustained and the matter was sent back with a direction that the appellate authority decide the issue afresh after considering all evidence and hearing the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand order on unjust enrichment must be reasoned, and the appellate authority should decide the issue on the evidence before it unless further inquiry is demonstrably necessary.

---