Unjust enrichment in refund claims rejected where buyer evidence showed duty was not passed on and credit was not availed.

Refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the buyer's letter, reconciliation statement and certificate of non-availment of Cenvat credit showed that duty had been reimbursed only at the reduced rate and the incidence had not been passed on. The lower appellate authority's objection that a jurisdictional certification was absent was not accepted because the record contained direct evidence from the buyer and no reason was shown to disregard it. The refund claim was therefore admissible and the denial of refund was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was admissible where the buyer's letter, reconciliation statement, and certificate of non-availment of Cenvat credit showed that duty had been reimbursed only at the reduced rate and the incidence had not been passed on.

Analysis: The buyer's letter stated that reimbursement was made only at 8.24% and not at 10.3%, and the reconciliation statement supported the claim. The buyer also certified that Cenvat credit had not been availed. The rejection by the lower appellate authority was based on the absence of a jurisdictional certification, but the record contained clear evidence from the buyer and no basis was shown to discard it. In the circumstances, the refund was not barred by unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible and the denial of refund was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

---