Unjust enrichment presumption bars refund where invoice evidence shows duty incidence was passed on to customers

The refund claim was subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, so the assessee had to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B that excise duty had been passed on to customers. Mere price uniformity before and after the relevant period was held insufficient to displace that presumption, and the invoices showing levy of central excise duty under the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZQ supported recovery of the duty element from buyers. On that material, the presumption remained unrebutted, and the refund was rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and could be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the customers.

Analysis: The refund was sanctioned but not released to the appellant because the authorities found that the burden of duty had not been shown to have been retained by the assessee. Section 12B created a presumption that the incidence of excise duty had been passed on, and the appellant was required to rebut that presumption with evidence. Mere price uniformity before and after the relevant period was held insufficient to prove that the duty burden was not passed on. The invoices themselves showed that central excise duty under the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZQ was leviable, which supported the inference that the duty element had been recovered from customers. On that material, the presumption remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment applied, and the refund was rightly directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---