- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the revenue proposing following question of law: Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing the refund to the appellant whereas the party has failed to produce evidence before the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) about their plea that incidence of duty had not been passed on to the buyers?
(2.) The petitioner contested its liability to pay duty and paid the same under protest. Subsequently, it was found that the petitioner was not liable to pay duty as its activities did not amount to manufacture. On this finding, the petitioner applied for refund, on which it was directed that the refund be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund as doctrine of unjust enrichment was attracted, the petitioner having passed on the burden of duty to the consumer.
(3.) The Tribunal reversed the above finding. It was observed as under: From the record it is quite evident that the appellants produced before the authorities below the GPI, balance Sheet, price list, ledger, cash book etc. but none of these documents had been even considered by the authorities below. From these documents and the copies of the gate passes invoices which have been placed on record, it is quite evident that the appellants had not passed on the incidence of duty, to the suppliers during the period in dispute. They had only charged the job work charges from them. Therefore, they are entitled to the refund of the disputed amount and it could not be ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.;