Concessional excise rate and unjust enrichment documentary proof sustained refund for export unit's domestic clearances.

A 100% Export Oriented Unit clearing goods to the Domestic Tariff Area was found entitled to the concessional rate under Notification No. 6/2003-CE rather than tariff-rate duty, because the applicable notification and duty discharge record supported that treatment. The refund claim was also held not to be barred by unjust enrichment, as invoices, buyers' certificates, PLA records and a chartered accountant's certificate showed that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers and the refund burden remained with the assessee. On that basis, the impugned orders were upheld and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a 100% Export Oriented Unit clearing goods to the Domestic Tariff Area was required to discharge Central Excise duty at the tariff rate or could avail the concessional rate under Notification No. 6/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003; (ii) whether the refund claim was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether a 100% Export Oriented Unit clearing goods to the Domestic Tariff Area was required to discharge Central Excise duty at the tariff rate or could avail the concessional rate under Notification No. 6/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003.

Analysis: The clearances to the Domestic Tariff Area were examined on the basis of the applicable notification and the record of duty discharge. The lower authorities had accepted that the effective rate under the notification applied to the clearances in question. The Revenue's insistence on tariff rate duty was not accepted in view of the factual and legal position recorded below.

Conclusion: The concessional rate under Notification No. 6/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003 was held applicable, and the Revenue's objection on tariff-rate duty was rejected.

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

Analysis: The invoices, buyers' certificates, PLA records and chartered accountant's certificate were treated as sufficient evidence that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers. The material showed that only the notified duty had been collected at the time of clearance and that the refund amount was borne by the assessee. In the absence of contrary evidence from the Revenue, unjust enrichment was held not to apply.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held not to be hit by unjust enrichment and was admissible to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were upheld in full, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund is admissible where contemporaneous invoices and supporting documentary evidence establish that the duty incidence was not passed on, and unjust enrichment cannot be presumed without contrary proof.

---