Refund of duty on exported stock-transferred goods upheld where unjust enrichment did not arise and procedural defects were insufficient.

Refund of duty under Notification No. 16/95-C.E. (N.T.) was held maintainable where the duty had been paid on stock-transferred goods exported to Nepal. The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply because the exporting unit could not avail credit on the duty-paid goods, and the record supported that the exported goods formed part of that duty-paid stock. Alleged procedural defects in export compliance were not sufficient to defeat the claim. The rejection of refund was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of duty under Notification No. 16/95-C.E. (N.T.) dated 27-4-1995, and whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment or defeated by alleged procedural defects and uncertainty regarding the duty-paid nature of the exported goods.

Analysis: The appellate finding that the refund claim was maintainable under Notification No. 16/95-C.E. (N.T.) had not been challenged by the Revenue. The duty had admittedly been paid by the appellant on stock transferred goods, and the exported goods formed part of that duty-paid stock sent to Nepal. In such circumstances, the Gorakhpur unit could not avail credit on the goods, and the bar of unjust enrichment did not arise. The record also supported the conclusion that the exported goods were part of the duty-paid goods, and the procedural objection regarding export compliance was not sufficient to defeat the refund claim.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to refund, and the rejection of the claim was unsustainable.

---