Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010262702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : C.Ex.App./11/2025 M/S JAYSHREE TIMBER PRODUCTS C/O JAYSHREE TEA AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED, INDUSTRY HOUSE 10 CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA 700017, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI BIJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI, SO LATE RIDDHI KARAN CHATURVEDI RESIDING AT SILVER OAK ESTATE, FLAT NO 3013, RAJARHAT ROAD, KALIPARK, BABLATOLLA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, PIN 700136 VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIBRUGARH, MILON NAGAR LANE, LANE-F, P.O. C.R. BUILDING, DIBRUGARH 786003, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, S CHOUDHURY,MR SOHAING Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S C KEYAL, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date :05/08/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. C. Keyal, Page No.# 2/4 learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Jain, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise and Customs Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. The issue to be decided in this case, is whether the duty on the manufactured U/F resin and P/F resin, which was not dutiable under TI no. 15A(1) of the first schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944, had been passed on by the appellant to the consumers. 3. In the event, the duty on the UF/PF resin had been passed on by the appellant to the consumers, the same would amount to unjust enrichment in view of the fact that the duty that had been paid by the appellant on the UF/PF resin, amounting to Rs. 51,33,004.71, which had been refunded, would have to be considered to be an erroneous refund, would have to be submitted before the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (here in after referred to as the Act). 4. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant was manufacturing articles and used UF/PF resin solution and had paid duty on the same. The question of whether UF/PF resin solution was dutiable, was subsequently decided by the Single Bench and the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule no. 343/1992 and WA no. 211/1996, by holding that it was not dutiable. 5. In view of the decision of this Court that UF/PF resin solution was not dutiable, the appellant had asked for refund of the duty paid on the UF/PF resin solution amounting to Rs. 51,33,004.71. The same had been refunded by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 20/08/2003. However, on the revision petition filed under section 35EE of the Act, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) held that the decision of the Assistant Commissioner in refunding the duty amounting to Rs. 51,33,004.71, was not correct, as the issue whether the appellant had not passed on their duty to the consumers, had to be proved by the Page No.# 3/4 appellant. 6. The appeal filed by the appellant before the CSTAT Kolkata, Kolkata was rejected in Excise Appeal no. 75314-75315 of 2014 vide final order no. 76695-76696 of 2025 dated 03/07/2025. 7. The appellant has now put to challenge the final order dated 03/07/2025 passed by CSTAT Kolkata and also the order dated 31/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals). 8. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, we find that the only question to be decided is whether there was unjust enrichment on the part of the appellant, which could be decided only by taking a decision, as to whether the duty on the UF/PF resin solution had been passed on to the consumers, prior to this Court having decided that the said resin solution was not dutiable. In the event, it is found that the appellant had passed on the duty on the UF/PF resin solution to the consumers, the refund of Rs. 51,33,004.71 to the appellant by the respondents, would have attracted the charge of there being unjust enrichment on the part of the appellant. 9. On the other hand, if the duty has not been passed on to the consumers by the appellant, then there would be no illegality or unfairness in the refund of the said amount to the appellant. 10. The above being a question of fact, we are of the view that the said issue should be decided by the respondent and especially by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jorhat. 11. We accordingly close the present appeal by directing the appellant to approach the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jorhat, within the Page No.# 4/4 period of one month from today, with regard to his claim that the refund of Rs. 51,33,004.71 as duty on UF/SF resin, did not amount to unjust enrichment. The appellant should be given an opportunity to prove before the Assistant Commissioner that the duty on UF/PF resin solution had not been passed on to the consumers. 12. Till a final decision is taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jorhat, no coercive action should be taken by the respondents to recover the amount of Rs. 51,33,004.71. 13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant