Review of SAD refund appeal, revenue's unjust enrichment claim dismissed. Violation of Circulars led to appeal dismissal.

The appeal concerning the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under a specific customs notification was reviewed. The judge decided to recall the Final Order to examine the appeal on merit due to procedural issues. In another aspect, the revenue's appeal on unjust enrichment in the refund case was dismissed. Despite meeting the requirements outlined in relevant Circulars, the revenue's actions were found to be in violation of the Circular, resulting in a waste of court time. The appeal was ultimately dismissed after allowing a Rectification of Mistake Application.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund of SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007.
2. Unjust enrichment in the refund case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed concerning the refund of SAD under Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The Authorized Representative for the revenue argued that the issue was related to the refund policy not covering periods before 04.04.2018 and after 25.05.2018. Upon noting the absence of the respondent and reviewing the case record, the judge decided to recall the Final Order to examine the appeal on merit, considering it was filed on 31 October 2018.

2. The revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 02.07.2018, arguing that the refund case was affected by unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) had addressed the unjust enrichment issue in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, citing Circular No.6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008 and Circular No.18/2010-Cus dated 08.07.2010 issued by CBEC. The Circular from 2008 specified that a certificate from the statutory auditor confirming that the burden of 4% SED was not transferred to the buyer was sufficient to establish unjust enrichment. The appellant met this requirement, satisfying the principles outlined in the Circular. Despite the binding nature of CBEC circulars on departmental offices, the revenue proceeded with the appeal, contrary to the Circular's instructions. The judge noted that the revenue's actions were in violation of the Circular, resulting in a waste of court time. Consequently, the appeal by revenue was dismissed after allowing the Rectification of Mistake Application.

---