JUDGMENT
Jyoti Balasundram, Member (J)
1. The authorities below have held that the refund claim filed by the appellants herein on the ground that Notification No. 325/86 CE has been given retrospective effect from 1.3.1986 exempting the aerated waters from so much of duty of excise already paid on flavouring essences or concentrate is admissible on merits but has credit the amount to the consumer welfare fund established under Section 12C of the Customs Act, and has not sanctioned refund to the appellants on the ground that they did not cross the here of unjust enrichment. In other words the refund claim has not been held to be payable to them for the reason that they did not establish that having recovered to recover the duty they had not passed on duty burden to their customers.
2. On hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records we find that there is no material to show that the duty burden has not been passed on to their customers. They have therefore not satisfied us that the bar of unjust enrichment does not operate against them. In view of the above we hold that there is no merit in their appeal, and accordingly we uphold the impugned order and rejected the appeal.
(Pronounced in Court)