Unjust enrichment bars refund when duty is passed to buyers and the statutory presumption is not rebutted.

A refund claim is barred where the claimant invoices the duty element to buyers and fails to prove that the incidence of duty was not passed on. Unsupported assertions of credit notes and an alleged reversal of Modvat credit do not displace the statutory presumption under Section 12B or satisfy Section 11B(1). The refund was therefore treated as hit by unjust enrichment, and the amount was correctly directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment and, if so, whether the amount was required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The appellants had issued invoices showing recovery of the duty element from buyers and did not produce evidence to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The alleged issue of credit notes was unsupported by proof, and the claimed reversal of Modvat credit, even if assumed, did not rebut the statutory presumption. In these circumstances, the requirements of Section 12B and Section 11B(1) were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment and the amount was correctly directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---