Unjust enrichment does not bar refund of post-clearance excise duty, including the related interest component.

Refund of differential excise duty paid after clearance of goods was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the evidence showed the duty incidence could not have been passed on to buyers after clearance. The presumption under section 12B was displaced because payment was made later and no debit note or invoice recovery was effected. The same principle was applied to the interest component, which was also treated as outside the refund bar. The Revenue's objection was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of differential excise duty paid after clearance of goods was barred by unjust enrichment, including the treatment of the duty component and interest component.

Analysis: The refund arose from duty paid subsequent to clearance of goods, and the factual finding was that the incidence of duty could not have been passed on to customers after such clearance. The presumption under section 12B stood displaced by the evidence that the amount was paid later and no debit note or invoice recovery was made. The cited Tribunal and High Court view treated post-clearance payment as outside the mischief of unjust enrichment, and the same principle was applied here. The interest component was also treated as not attracting the bar for refund purposes.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment, and the Revenue's objection was rejected.

---