Successful appeal on refund claim for excise duty due to unjust enrichment. Remand for fresh decision and personal hearing.

The appeal against the rejection of a refund claim due to unjust enrichment regarding the payment of excise duty on an intermediate product was successful. The Member (Judicial) found that the duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person based on the evidence presented. The case was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, with instructions to grant a personal hearing to the appellant and issue a new order within three months. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for further examination of the evidence and arguments.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim due to unjust enrichment.
- Determination of whether duty incidence was passed on to any other person.
- Consideration of evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

Analysis:
The case involved appeals against the rejection of a refund claim due to unjust enrichment concerning the payment of excise duty on an intermediate product. The appellant, after being pointed out by the Department, started paying duty on the product under protest. The issue revolved around whether the duty incidence was passed on to any other person. The appellant argued that the duty paid on the intermediate product was not part of the sale value of the final products as the price remained the same before and after duty payment. They presented a Chartered Accountant certificate to support their claim that the duty incidence was not passed on. The Revenue contended that the appellant failed to show the duty paid as receivable in their books of account and that the price stability of the final product was not sufficient evidence to prove non-passing of duty incidence.

In the judgment, the Member (Judicial) analyzed the submissions of both sides. It was noted that the appellant paid duty under protest and that the duty was not directly charged in the invoice. The crucial test was whether the price of the final product was affected by the duty burden on the intermediate product. The Member disagreed with the lower authorities' findings that the duty payment not being shown as receivable in the books was conclusive proof of passing on the duty incidence. The treatment of duty paid in the Profit & Loss account did not necessarily indicate passing on of duty. Considering the facts, including the unchanged final product price, it was concluded that the duty incidence had not been passed on. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, with a directive to grant a personal hearing to the appellant and issue a new order within three months.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand for further examination based on the observations made regarding the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

---