Refund under exemption notification upheld where duty incidence was not passed on and unjust enrichment did not apply.

A refund dispute involving a 100% EOU turned on entitlement to exemption under Notification 6/02 dated 01.03.2002 and the application of unjust enrichment. The text notes that the exemption issue had already attained finality in the assessee's favour, supporting refund of excess duty paid under protest. It also records that the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on invoices, PLA records and a chartered accountant's certificate to find that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers. On that basis, the refund was treated as not hit by unjust enrichment and the Revenue's challenge lacked merit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim could be denied on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 01.03.2002; (ii) whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim could be denied on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 01.03.2002.

Analysis: The entitlement to the notification benefit had already been conclusively decided by an earlier order, which had attained finality as it was not challenged by the Revenue. Once that determination became final, the same ground could not be reopened in the refund proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. dated 01.03.2002.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The appellate authority examined the invoices, PLA account, chartered accountant's certificate and customer confirmations. On that evidence, it held that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers. The mere possibility of subsequent invoices or debit notes, without supporting evidence, was insufficient to invoke unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was not attracted and the refund was admissible.

Final Conclusion: The refund order was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund cannot be denied on a ground already concluded by a final order, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies only where the passing on of duty incidence is established on evidence.

---