Unjust enrichment bars excise duty refund where invoices show duty passed on, despite later credit notes.

Refund of excise duty was held to be barred by unjust enrichment where invoices showed the duty element and the goods had been cleared on payment of duty. Subsequent buyer objections and later credit notes did not, by themselves, disprove passing on of the duty burden. Non-receipt of payment from buyers was treated as irrelevant to the test of incidence. The claim was therefore not allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the excise duty burden had been passed on to the buyers.

Analysis: The goods were excisable and were cleared on payment of duty with invoices reflecting the duty element. The subsequent objection by buyers and the later issue of credit notes did not, by themselves, establish that the duty incidence had not been passed on. The claim that payment had not actually been received from the buyers was held to be irrelevant for determining whether the duty burden had been shifted. The reasoning followed the principle that once duty is shown in the invoices, the burden is not disproved merely by later adjustments or absence of immediate receipt.

Conclusion: The refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment and was not allowable.

---