ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The appellant herein filed a claim for refund of Rs. 11,742/- for goods cleared by them and in order to examine merit of the claim they were asked to file documents showing that they had not passed on burden of duty to their customers. While their claim was held to be admissible on merits the amount was ordered to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund in the absence of documentary evidence to establish that the duty burden had not been passed on by the importers/appellants to their customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel submits that although bar of unjust enrichment is applicable in case of captive consumption like the present one the matter may be sent back for verification on the basis of the Chartered Accountant’s certificate filed by them to the effect that the duty burden has not been passed on to their customers. Learned DR reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority particularly the finding that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate is not backed by any documentary evidence.
3. On hearing both sides, I see force in the submission of the appellant’s counsel that the matter requires to be examined afresh. The Assistant Commissioner, to whom the matter is remanded, is directed to examine the claim of the appellant that they have not passed on duty burden to their customers with reference to the Chartered Accountant’s certificate and any other documents that the importers may file before him during the fresh proceedings. Orders are to be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity to the importers of being heard in person.
4. The appeal is thus allowed by remand after setting aside the impugned order.