Refund claim limited by prior remand scope; retention upheld where unjust enrichment alone was open for reconsideration.

Refund of duty paid under protest was confined by an earlier remand order to verification of unjust enrichment and production of specified evidence, so the lower authorities could not expand the inquiry beyond that limited scope. The retained amount related to electricity used for purposes other than manufacture, and the appellant had not challenged the restrictive remand or sought rectification. On that basis, the claim for restoration of the retained amount was rejected and the retention was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount of Rs. 14,45,705/- retained by the lower authorities could be refunded to the appellant despite the earlier remand order limiting reconsideration to the question of unjust enrichment and permitting production of specified evidence.

Analysis: The dispute concerned a refund claim arising from duty paid under protest in relation to exemption notifications governing use of naphtha for generation of power for captive consumption. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter only to verify the bar of unjust enrichment and had permitted the appellant to produce accounts and the earlier appellate order. In compliance with that limited remand, the lower authorities could not travel beyond the scope of the Tribunal's direction. The amount retained represented duty attributable to electricity used for purposes other than manufacture, and the appellant had not challenged the restrictive remand order or sought rectification.

Conclusion: The claim for restoration of the retained amount was rejected and the retention by the lower authorities was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the adjudicating and appellate authorities acted within the confined scope of the prior remand, and no further refund could be ordered in respect of the disputed amount.

---