Unjust enrichment in excise refund claims fails where the duty burden is found not to have been passed on to buyers.

Refund of excise duty was found not to be barred by unjust enrichment because the Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that the purchase price was inclusive of excise duty, only the duty payable was to be deducted to arrive at assessable value, and the excess duty was borne by the manufacturer. On that factual basis, the duty incidence was held not to have been passed on to buyers, and there was no material to disturb that finding. The refund claim therefore remained admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment on the ground that the excise duty incidence had been passed on to the buyers.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) recorded a factual finding that the purchase order price was inclusive of excise duty, that only the duty payable was to be deducted to arrive at the assessable value, and that the excess duty had in fact been borne by the manufacturer. On the material considered, there was no basis to disturb the finding that the duty burden had not been transferred to customers.

Conclusion: The refund was not barred by unjust enrichment and the finding in favour of the manufacturer was upheld.

---