Refund claims and unjust enrichment require full examination of duty incidence evidence, not presumptions about protest or passing on of burden.

A refund claim arising from disputed central excise duty could not be rejected on a bare presumption that duty was not paid under protest or that unjust enrichment applied. The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority had to comply with earlier remand directions and examine the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the factual assertion that no sale had taken place, because those matters were relevant to duty incidence and passing on of burden. It also noted that rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 became effective only from 11 May 1981, so the absence of a formal protest mechanism for the earlier period could not be applied mechanically. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority complied with the earlier remand directions while deciding refund claims arising from disputed central excise duty, and whether the findings on protest and unjust enrichment could stand without proper examination of the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the factual position of no sale.

Analysis: The dispute concerned refund claims for duty paid over different periods after the excisability controversy regarding captive consumption of PVC films/sheets had been finally settled. The earlier remand had required the appellate authority to examine the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the factual assertion that no sale had taken place, because those matters were relevant to whether the burden of duty had been passed on. The impugned order instead proceeded substantially on a presumption that duty had not been paid under protest and applied unjust enrichment without adequately addressing the remand directions. The Tribunal noted that rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 came into force only from 11 May 1981, so the absence of a formal protest mechanism for the earlier period could not be used mechanically against the appellant. The Tribunal also found that the factual foundation for rejecting the refund claim on unjust enrichment required a proper inquiry into the evidence already directed to be considered.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the first appellate authority for fresh decision in accordance with the earlier remand directions and after considering the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the relevant factual material.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund dispute cannot be decided on a presumption of non-protest or unjust enrichment where the appellate authority has been specifically directed to examine material evidence on duty incidence and the factual matrix affecting passing on of the burden.

---