Tribunal grants refund for double-paid duty on Ethanol, finds blending not manufacturing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The appellants were entitled to a refund as they paid duty twice on Ethanol due to a misunderstanding by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the blending activity did not amount to manufacture, making the appellants eligible for the refund. Additionally, the issue of unjust enrichment was deemed inapplicable due to statutory price controls, further supporting the appellants' claim for a refund or CENVAT credit on the duty paid.

---

---

Issues:
- Refund claim of duty paid twice on Ethanol
- Entitlement for CENVAT credit on Ethanol at the time of procurement

Analysis:
The appellants appealed against the rejection of their refund claim for duty paid twice on Ethanol. They are engaged in manufacturing and distribution of petroleum products, where Ethanol is mixed with motor spirit to create Ethanol Blended Motor Spirit (EBMS). The lower authorities held that the blending of Ethanol with motor spirit amounts to manufacture, making the appellants ineligible for a refund. The appellants argued that they did not avail CENVAT credit on Ethanol at the time of procurement and paid duty twice on Ethanol content in EBMS. They sought a refund or CENVAT credit for the duty paid. The issue of unjust enrichment was raised, with the appellants citing a previous case to support their claim. The Revenue opposed the refund claim, stating that the activity amounted to manufacture and the product became duty-free as per Notification 62/2002. They argued that the appellants did not challenge the order rejecting the refund claim on valid grounds.

The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found that the appellants paid duty on Ethanol without taking credit and cleared EBMS by paying duty fixed by the government. It was undisputed that duty was paid twice on Ethanol. The dispute arose from a letter by the department stating that the blending activity did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to a refund as they paid duty twice on Ethanol, based on the wrong understanding of the Revenue. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of unjust enrichment, citing precedents where it was deemed inapplicable due to statutory price controls. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting consequential relief to the appellants.

---