- (1.) HEARD Sri D. C. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent-assessee.
(2.) THIS appeal under Section 35g of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 is directed against an order dated 24. 5. 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') holding that the respondent-assessee cannot be denied refund on the ground of unjust enrichment. On the basis of the said finding the learned tribunal had thought it proper to reverse the order dated 29. 9. 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati rejecting the claim for refund made by the respondent.
(3.) THE facts necessary for the present adjudication may now be briefly noticed ; the respondent-asessee is a manuf-acturer of urea having a unit located in Shahjahanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the process of manyfacture of urea, ammonia which is also manufactured by the respondent, is captively consumed as one of the inputs. Another input i. e. naptha is produced by the respondent from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The respondent applied for concessional rate of duty on naptha used for manufacture of urea in its plant at Shahajahanpur which, however, was rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by an order dated 8. 7. 97. Against the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad which was allowed by order dated 30. 10. 98 holding that the appellant (respondent herein) was eligible for concessional rate of duty with effect from 12. 1. 96. The respondent, thereafter, claimed refund of excise duty paid on naptha during the period 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. The refund application was initially filed on 7. 12. 98 before the Assistant Com-missioner of Central Excise, Sitapur. However, the said authority took the view that the refund application had to be filed before the jurisdictional authority at the place where duty had been paid. Consequently, on 16. 3. 99, the respondent withdrew its application for refund filed before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Sitapur and, thereafter, filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dhubri on 17. 5. 99. By order dated 31. 12. 2002, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dhubri rejected the refund claim of the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati. The said appeal was disposed of by an order dated 29. 9. 2003 affirming the order of rejection passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dhubri. A reading of the appellate order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Guwahati would go to show that the rejection of the refund claim of the respondent was reiterated on the following three principal grounds:-;