Unjust enrichment bars excise duty refund where the claimant cannot prove the duty burden was not passed on.

Amended Section 11B governs claims for refund of excess excise duty, and the claimant must prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. Where the assertion that the sale price reflected only the correct lower duty rate is unsupported by evidence, the statutory requirement is not met and unjust enrichment applies. In such circumstances, the refund cannot be retained by the claimant and must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty paid in excess could be retained by the claimant or had to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the footing that the incidence of duty had been passed on.

Analysis: The amended provisions of Section 11B governed the refund claim, and the burden lay on the claimant to show that the incidence of the excess duty had not been passed on. The claim that the sale price was based on the lower correct duty rate remained unsupported by evidence. In the absence of proof, the requirement under Section 11B(2) was not satisfied, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied.

Conclusion: The refund could not be paid to the claimant and was liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---