Appeal granted as duty not passed on to customers, doctrine of unjust enrichment not applicable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable. The appellant paid the duty under protest, reflected it as receivable, and maintained consistent sale prices. The burden of proof that the duty was not passed on to customers was met with evidence, leading to the conclusion that unjust enrichment did not apply. The appeal was granted based on these findings and legal precedent, providing relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against OIA upholding refund deposit in Consumer Welfare Fund; Unjust enrichment claim; Interpretation of Chartered Accountant certificate; Application of doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against OIA upholding the deposit of a refund in the Consumer Welfare Fund. The duty on HDPE tapes was paid under protest, and the amount refundable was included in the balance sheet as receivable. The appellant argued that unjust enrichment did not apply as the duty was paid under protest and shown as receivable, and the sale price of the end product remained unchanged. Reference was made to the judgment in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Organan (India) Limited and VXL Instruments Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore to support this argument.

The Revenue contended that unjust enrichment was involved in the case, as held by the first appellate authority. The lower authorities' orders were strongly defended by the Revenue representative.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was noted that the appellant had paid the dues under protest and reflected them as receivable in the books of accounts. The Chartered Accountant certificate confirmed the amount paid was accounted for as deposits and receivable. The sale price of the finished goods remained consistent before and after the refund period. Citing the judgment in the case of CCE, New Delhi vs. Organan (India) Limited, the Tribunal held that the burden of proving that the customs duty was not passed on to customers rested on the appellant. The Tribunal found that the incident of duty had not been passed on to customers based on evidence such as invoices, price lists, and an auditor's certificate, leading to the conclusion that unjust enrichment did not apply.

In light of the above analysis and legal precedent, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, concluding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable in the present case. The duty paid under protest, shown as receivable, and with no change in the sale price of finished goods, led to the decision to grant relief to the appellant.

---