Unjust enrichment bars excise duty refund where the claimant passed on the duty burden and failed to prove self-bearer incidence.

Refund of central excise duty, though otherwise admissible on merits, was barred by unjust enrichment because the record showed the duty burden had been recovered from principal manufacturers in the job-work chain and no evidence proved that the appellant bore the incidence itself. The refund was therefore not payable to the appellant and was correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of central excise duty, though otherwise admissible on merits, was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and therefore required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The refund arose from reduction of the annual capacity based duty liability after it was held that the length of the galleries was not to be included while determining the stenter length. The appellant had paid duty at the higher determined rate during the relevant period and the record showed that the duty burden had been recovered from the principal manufacturers for whom the fabrics were processed on job work basis. No evidence was produced to show that the incidence of duty had been borne by the appellant itself or that a lower amount had been recovered from the customers. On these facts, the bar of unjust enrichment applied to the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund was not payable to the appellant and was rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment despite being otherwise admissible on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of excise duty is barred where the claimant has passed on the incidence of duty to another person and does not prove that the burden was borne by itself.

---