Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 22 October, 1991
6. It is his contention that at the time of sanctioning of the refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority in his order dated 30.04.1996, a categorical observation was recorded to the effect that the appellant has not produced any evidences to establish the fact that the burden of duty claimed as refund has not been passed on to others. They simply argued that the principle of unjust enrichment would not be applicable for goods captively consumed, and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in its order dated 05.04.1999 accepting the said contention following the judgement of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI 1992 (57) ELT 201 (Bom.) allowed their appeal. On an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the case was remanded by the Tribunal to the Adjudicating Authority on 11.02.2002 to examine the issue of unjust enrichment after affording an opportunity to the appellant. Consequently, as is evident from the order dated 24.02.2006, the appellant for the first time had adduced evidences before the Adjudicating Authority by way of Chartered Accountants Certificate, Copies of Balance Sheet of the relevant year etc., in establishing the fact that the incidence of duty claimed as refund was borne by them and not passed on to their customers. It is his contention that therefore the appellant are not eligible to interest for the period 26.08.1995 to 26.10.1999, since, during this period the issue of unjust enrichment had not been established by the appellant by producing documents/evidences, hence, the refund amount was transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund.