ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appellants have been denied refund of Rs. 12.50 lakhs on the ground of unjust enrichment. It is the case of the appellants that initially the annual production capacity was fixed as 2.3 MT under Section 3A for levy of compounded duty and subsequently, it was re-determined as 2.6 MT. Pending re-determination, the appellants had paid higher amount of duty under the compounded levy scheme and the impugned refund relates to the duty payment at a higher rate of compounded levy. The appellants further submit that the sale price of the finished goods has remained the same and that the refund claim has arisen on account of adjustment under Section 3A(5) for which the provisions of unjust enrichment cannot apply.
2. Considering the fact that the sale price has not changed and the appellants were paying duty at a fixed rate under the compounded levy scheme without having any relation to the actual clearance, the question of applying the bar of unjust enrichment in such a case cannot arise. As such, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to refund of the excess duty and the orders passed by the lower authorities cannot be sustained.
3. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellants. Gist of our order as above was pronounced in the Court on the date of hearing on 3-12-2003.