Appellant wins refund claim appeal with strong documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had passed the bar of unjust enrichment by providing bank realisation certificates and debit notes as evidence. The documentary evidence proved that the duty amount had been refunded by the foreign buyer. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund claim was set aside, and the original adjudication order sanctioning the refund claim was restored. The appeal was allowed, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim denial based on unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported goods and inadvertently charged Central Excise duty. The foreign buyer pointed out the error, issued a debit note, and reduced the payment by the duty amount. The appellant filed a refund claim, which was initially sanctioned but later rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The appellant contended that they had passed the bar of unjust enrichment by providing bank realisation certificates and debit notes as evidence.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed passed the bar of unjust enrichment. The documentary evidence presented by the appellant, which was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), proved that the duty amount had been refunded by the foreign buyer. Consequently, the impugned order denying the refund claim was set aside, and the original adjudication order sanctioning the refund claim was restored.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the original adjudication order sanctioning the refund claim was reinstated. The stay application was also disposed of accordingly.

---