Unjust enrichment governs excise refund claims under Section 3A(5), with the claimant required to rebut the statutory presumption.

Refund of excess excise duty arising under Section 3A(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 remains subject to the bar of unjust enrichment, except where excess duty paid during provisional assessment is later adjusted on finalisation. The statutory presumption under Section 12B applies, so the claimant must prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. In the absence of acceptable evidence rebutting that presumption, Sections 11B and 12B cannot be treated as inapplicable to duty paid under Section 3A, and the refund claim is not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess duty paid under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could be granted without examining unjust enrichment and without proof that the duty burden had not been passed on to buyers.

Analysis: Refund arising on finalisation under Section 3A(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is subject to the bar of unjust enrichment, except in cases where the excess duty is paid during provisional assessment and later adjusted on finalisation. The deeming rule in Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies, so the person claiming refund must establish that the incidence of duty was not passed on. The assessee produced no acceptable evidence to discharge that burden, and the contention that Sections 11B and 12B were inapplicable to duty paid under Section 3A was rejected.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable without proof rebutting unjust enrichment, and the order denying refund was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the assessee did not prove that the excess duty had been borne by it and not recovered from buyers.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of excess excise duty arising under Section 3A(5) is subject to unjust enrichment, and the claimant must rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B by proving that the duty incidence was not passed on.

---