Unjust enrichment in excise refunds must be decided on evidence, with the claimant heard before any Consumer Welfare Fund credit.

In refund claims under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the question of unjust enrichment must be decided on the facts of the case after giving the claimant an opportunity to produce evidence. A direction that any admissible refund be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund cannot stand if that factual inquiry has not been properly undertaken. On remand, the authorities must consider the assessee's evidence afresh and determine whether the refund is barred by unjust enrichment in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on remand of the refund matter, the direction that any admissible refund may be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund could stand, and whether the question of unjust enrichment had to be examined on facts after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce evidence.

Analysis: Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires the proper officer, after finding that refund is due, to determine whether the claim is hit by unjust enrichment. That determination depends on the facts of each case and cannot be made abstractly without hearing the claimant and considering the material produced in support of the refund claim.

Conclusion: The direction to credit the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund was deleted, and the authorities on remand were required to consider the evidence produced by the assessee on the question of unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in removing the Consumer Welfare Fund direction, while the refund claim itself remained to be examined afresh on remand in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In refund matters under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the issue of unjust enrichment must be decided on the basis of evidence after giving the claimant an opportunity to be heard.

---