Unjust enrichment bars excise refund claims where duty incidence is not rebutted, even if payment was made under protest.

Refund of duty paid on galleries was held subject to unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act because the claim was made independently after finalisation of capacity determination, not as a provisional assessment under Rule 9B. Payment under protest did not, by itself, displace the statutory presumption under Section 12B that the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer. As the appellant produced no cogent evidence rebutting that presumption, the refund was correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for duty paid on galleries was barred by unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 12B of that Act.

Analysis: The refund was sought independently under Section 11B after finalization of the capacity determination and not by way of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, the claim had to satisfy the statutory conditions of Section 11B, including the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Payment under protest did not by itself exclude the bar of unjust enrichment. Under Section 12B, a presumption operated that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyer unless rebutted by reliable material. The appellant failed to produce cogent evidence showing that the duty burden on the galleries had not been passed on.

Conclusion: The refund was rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and the challenge to the order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under Section 11B is subject to unjust enrichment, and payment of duty under protest does not, by itself, displace the statutory presumption under Section 12B that the duty incidence was passed on.

---