Refund under exemption notification upheld, new rejection ground barred, while unjust enrichment still needs verification.

Refund claims for brass sheets and circles cleared under Notification No. 6/2002-CE were treated as covered by the exempted entry, following settled Supreme Court guidance on the same notification structure and similar goods, so duty paid under protest was refundable. A fresh objection based on alleged availment of Notification No. 67/95-CE could not be raised in the second round of litigation because it was a new ground not taken earlier. The refund claim, however, remained subject to verification of unjust enrichment, and that factual issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant was entitled to refund on the basis of Notification No. 6/2002-CE for brass sheets/circles cleared during the relevant period; (ii) whether the Revenue could sustain rejection of refund on the new ground that the appellant was availing Notification No. 67/95-CE in the second round of litigation; and (iii) whether refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the appellant was entitled to refund on the basis of Notification No. 6/2002-CE for brass sheets/circles cleared during the relevant period.

Analysis: The exemption issue was treated as settled by the Supreme Court decision on the same notification structure and similar goods. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appellant's goods fell within the exempted entry and that duty had been paid under protest on a mistaken understanding of liability.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the appellant was held entitled to refund of the duty deposited under protest.

Issue (ii): whether the Revenue could sustain rejection of refund on the new ground that the appellant was availing Notification No. 67/95-CE in the second round of litigation.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that this was a fresh ground not taken in the earlier round and that, after remand, the Revenue could not improve its case by introducing a new basis for rejection. The rejection on this ground was therefore held to be unavailable.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the new ground of rejection was set aside.

Issue (iii): whether refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the question whether the duty burden had been passed on required verification of the factual material, including the Chartered Accountant certificate and the refund records. Instead of deciding the entitlement finally on this aspect, the matter was sent back for verification.

Conclusion: This issue was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on the merits of exemption and on the objection based on Notification No. 67/95-CE, while the refund claim remained subject to verification of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the exemption issue is already settled on identical notification language and facts, a refund cannot be denied on a newly introduced ground in the second round of litigation, though the factual bar of unjust enrichment may still require verification.

---