Appeal granted, refund rejection overturned in favor of appellant. Timely claim upheld, company name change justified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund rejection and ruling in favor of the appellant. The refund claim was deemed timely and jurisdictionally appropriate, considering the specific customs jurisdiction for the 100% EOU operations. The discrepancy in company names for duty payment and refund claim was accepted due to a legitimate name change supported by documentation. The principle of unjust enrichment was found not applicable to the 100% EOU scenario, exempting the appellant from such considerations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on time limit and jurisdiction.
2. Discrepancy in company name for duty payment and refund claim.
3. Application of unjust enrichment in the case of a 100% EOU.

Analysis:
1. Refund Claim Time Bar and Jurisdiction:
The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting mango pulp, procured furnace oil under a specific notification without duty payment. The department demanded duty, leading to the appellant paying under protest. The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand, prompting a refund claim. The sanctioning authority rejected the claim citing time limit, jurisdiction, and unjust enrichment. The appellant argued the claim was within the stipulated period from the Commissioner (Appeals) order and that jurisdiction was correct due to EOU operations. The Tribunal agreed, stating the refund was timely and jurisdictionally appropriate, as the EOU fell under a specific customs jurisdiction.

2. Company Name Discrepancy:
Another ground for rejecting the refund was a discrepancy in the company name for duty payment and refund claim. The appellant clarified that the company name change was legitimate, supported by a Registrar of Companies certificate. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, ruling that the name change did not invalidate the refund claim, as it was the same entity involved in both the duty payment and the refund request.

3. Unjust Enrichment for 100% EOU:
The issue of unjust enrichment was raised based on a Supreme Court judgment. The appellant contended that being a 100% EOU exporting all goods, the unjust enrichment principle did not apply as per Section 11B(2) proviso clause (a). The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the duty paid on the furnace oil was for goods exported, exempting the case from unjust enrichment considerations. The Tribunal distinguished previous judgments cited by the revenue, noting their inapplicability to the unique circumstances of a 100% EOU scenario.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund rejection and ruling in favor of the appellant based on the valid arguments presented regarding the time limit, jurisdiction, company name change, and the inapplicability of unjust enrichment in the context of a 100% EOU exporting all goods.

---