Unjust enrichment and excise refund: excess duty on provisional pricing was not barred after later price adjustment.

Refund of excess excise duty paid on supplies made at a provisional price was examined in light of unjust enrichment. The supplies were later finalised at a lower contract price, and the excess amount, together with the corresponding duty, was adjusted or returned to the buyer. On these facts, the incidence of duty was not treated as having been passed on, because the customer was ultimately not burdened with the higher price and the excess was reflected in later adjustments. Supporting certificate evidence and earlier Tribunal decisions on identical facts were relied upon, while contrary authorities were found inapplicable. The refund claim was therefore not defeated by unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess excise duty paid on supplies made at a provisional price, after finalisation of the contract price at a lower rate and return of the excess amount to the buyer, was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyer. The supplies were made to a Government undertaking at a provisional price, and after the contract price was finalised at a lower rate, the excess amount and corresponding duty were adjusted and refunded. On identical facts, earlier Tribunal decisions had held that where the customer was not ultimately burdened with the higher price and the excess was returned or adjusted, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not defeat the refund claim. The cited contrary authorities were found inapplicable because the present facts showed subsequent adjustment of the excess amount in later bills and supporting certificate evidence.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---