Tribunal grants refund to appellant in unjust enrichment case, finding duty not passed on to buyer.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. It was determined that the excess duty payment was not passed on to the buyer, supported by accounting entries and certificates from both parties. The Tribunal found that the duty incidence was borne by the appellant due to a computer error, and the buyer had not availed cenvat credit. Consequently, the appellant was granted the refund with consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant cleared goods at a price higher than agreed due to a computer error, resulting in excess Central Excise duty payment. The appellant sought a refund, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that the excess duty was not passed on to the buyer and provided accounting entries and certificates to support this claim.

The Ld. Consultant contended that accounting entries showed the excess duty was not transferred to the buyer, supported by certificates from both parties. The Ld. Consultant referenced judgments to support the refund claim. The Ld. DR argued against the refund, questioning the evidential value of the certificates and citing tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal found that the Range Superintendent's verification report confirmed excess duty payment due to a computer error, and the buyer had not availed cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted the appellant's accounting entries and certificates demonstrated that the excess duty was not passed on to the buyer. The Tribunal referenced judgments supporting the appellant's position and distinguished them from cases cited by the Ld. DR.

The Tribunal concluded that the excess duty refund claim was valid as the duty incidence was borne by the appellant and not passed on to the buyer. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential benefits.

---