Concessional-duty refund for ethanol blending cannot be denied for procedure alone when eligibility is settled and price remains unchanged.

Under the concessional-duty scheme for motor spirit used in ethanol blending, the note says refund of differential duty should not be denied solely for alleged procedural non-compliance where eligibility under the scheme had already attained finality and registration was obtained shortly after the first consignment. It also notes that unjust enrichment does not bar refund when the evidence shows no change in price and no passing on of duty incidence. The stated effect is that refund claims under concessional-duty arrangements must be tested on the substantive facts, and procedural lapse or unjust enrichment cannot be assumed without proof.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund of differential duty could be denied for alleged non-compliance with the procedure prescribed for obtaining motor spirit at concessional rate for blending with ethanol; (ii) whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund of differential duty could be denied for alleged non-compliance with the procedure prescribed for obtaining motor spirit at concessional rate for blending with ethanol.

Analysis: The concessional levy under Notification No. 28/2002-CE dated 13.05.2002 was linked to compliance with the procedure under the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The earlier appellate order on the assessee's eligibility had attained finality as it was not challenged. In the facts recorded, the assessee had applied for registration and obtained it shortly after the first consignment, and the subsequent refund claim had to be examined on merits rather than being rejected only on the ground of alleged procedural lapse.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the procedural objection.

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

Analysis: The Commissioner's finding that there was no change in price supported the conclusion that the duty incidence had not been passed on. The Tribunal also relied on its earlier decision in the assessee's own case, which supported rejection of the Revenue's unjust enrichment objection on similar facts.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the assessee's refund claim was sustained with consequential relief, if any.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund under a concessional-duty scheme cannot be denied merely for procedural non-compliance where the assessee's eligibility has attained finality and registration has been obtained in the course of the same transaction chain, and unjust enrichment is not established when the price remains unchanged.

---