ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. After hearing both sides on 18-2-2002, this appeal was allowed and the order was pronounced in the Court on the same day. The reasons for the said decision are as under :-
2. In this case the consequential refund allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been denied on the ground of unjust enrichment. It is the case of the appellants that in this case the raw-materials were imported for subsequent processing and exporting them to the foreign buyers as per the conditions in the EXIM policy and therefore, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. They have also cited the following two decisions of the Tribunal in their support :-
(1) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. C.C.E., Jamshedpur – 2001 (130) E.L.T. 277 (Tri. – Kolkata).
(2) C.C.E., Patna v. Bhagwati Pd. Agarwall Engg. Works (P) Ltd. – 1998 (29)RLT477(CEGAT).
Both these decisions support the claim of the appellants that bar of unjust enrichment cannot be applied when there is no change in the sale price of the final product and hence the duty incidence cannot be said to have been passed on to the buyers. Following the said two decisions of the Tribunal, we allow the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief.