CCE Vs. AMBAY INDUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None has come present on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice on them for today's hearing, No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the learned JDR.

(2.) The Revenue in this appeal had made challenge to the impugned Order -in -Appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the Order -in -Original and allowed the refund claim of the respondents by holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable to their case.

(3.) The learned JDR has contended that the adjudicating authority disallowed the refund claim on the ground that the respondents had failed to prove that they had not passed on the incidence of duty to the customers, after following the remand order of the Tribunal, but the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into that aspect of the matter and reversed the order simply by holding that since duty was paid under protest, the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply.