Unjust enrichment governs central excise refund claims; matter remanded for fresh examination of duty incidence.

Refund of central excise duty had to be tested on the statutory bar of unjust enrichment, because refund under Section 11B is available only where the claimant shows that duty was collected or paid by it and that the incidence was not passed on. As the lower authorities had rejected the claim as time-barred without examining this requirement, the matter required fresh consideration with due opportunity to the claimant. The issue was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration of unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for central excise duty was liable to be examined on the ground of unjust enrichment and whether the matter required remand for such consideration.

Analysis: The lower authorities had rejected the refund claim as time-barred and had not examined whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to any other person. The governing requirement under Section 11B was that refund could be granted only if the claimant established that the duty was collected from or paid by it and that the incidence of such duty had not been passed on. Since this aspect had not been considered, the matter required fresh examination after granting due opportunity.

Conclusion: The refund issue had to be reconsidered on the aspect of unjust enrichment, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals).

---