ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved with the OIA Nos. 246 & 247/2003-Cus., dated 13-6-2003. The original authority had allowed the refund claim but had credited the amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the refund attracts the unjust enrichment clause. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted in the order that the assessee imported 15,750 kgs. of LLDPE granules vide Bill of Entry No. 3653, dated 16-10-2000. The original authority had accepted the price differential on the premise that a 10% tolerance deduction from Platt prices is normally eligible. However, he rejected the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment. The assessee had produced Chartered Accountant’s Certificate to show that the duty had been borne by them and had not been passed on to the customers. The Commissioner accepted this plea. He also held that the assesses are primarily exporting final product HDPE woven sacks, which is not subject to duty. The assessee had submitted in their letter dated 27-2-2001 that the Cenvat credit was not being availed as the final product is primarily meant for exports. Therefore, he accepted all the evidences produced and allowed the refund claim. The Revenue contends in this appeal that mere submission of Chartered Accountant’s Certificate is not sufficient to accept the claim.
2. The learned SDR argued on the basis of the grounds made in the appeal memo.
3. None have appeared on behalf of the respondent despite several notices. Hence, the matter is decided on merits. It is not in dispute that the assessee had produced evidence and also supported it by the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate. The final product was exported carrying NIL rate of duty. The assessee had also not taken Modvat credit on the imported inputs. The Certificate is not challenged by the department and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in accepting the Certificate. The Revenue has not rebutted the evidence. Therefore, they cannot ask the Tribunal to hold that the assessee should have produced further corroborative evidence. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)