ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri J.H. Motwani, Ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri. M.H. Sheikh, ld. JDR for the Revenue, I find refund claim has been denied on the ground of unjust enrichment by observing that the appellant has not been able to place upon record any evidence under provisions of Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 to show that they have not recovered the amount from the customers. The appellant’s contention is that the duty in question was paid subsequent to the clearance as differential duty under the compounded levy scheme. As such the deeming provisions of Section 12B will not get attracted. My attention has been drawn to the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has held that duty in question was paid subsequent to the clearance effected under the Central Excise invoices and Commissioner (Appeals) has further observed that the said payment under the Compounded Levy Scheme was due and held that it has to be presumed that the said duty has been recovered by them from their customers. Tribunal’s decision in the case of Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of C. Ex. Chandigarh reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 506 (Tri.) wherein referring to Tribunal’s order in Ester industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner – 1999 (35) RLT 696 (Tri) it was held that the presumption under the provisions of Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 as regards unjust enrichment will not be attracted, When the duty is paid subsequent to the date of clearance of the goods. the above view is finally settled and requires no further elaboration. Admittedly in the present case the duty was paid subsequently to clearance of the goods.
2. As such, appellants are not required to show that such duty has not been recovered by them from their customers. It is for the Revenue to produce evidence in support of their allegations that the appellant has recovered duty amount from the customers. Though there is no evidence on record to that effect but in the interest of justice to the revenue, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asst. Commissioner for denovo decision in the light of settled law as discussed above.
3. The appeal is thus allowed by way remand.