Refund claims under central excise law fail without proof of provisional assessment or rebuttal of unjust enrichment presumption.

Refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act require proof that the assessments were provisional if limitation is to be avoided; where no request or approval under Rule 9B is shown, the refund claim remains time-barred. For later claims, the statutory presumption under Section 12B applies that duty has been passed on unless rebutted by evidence. Invoices that do not separately show duty, together with unsupported credit notes, are insufficient to displace that presumption. The key legal points are limitation for refund and the burden of proving that unjust enrichment does not apply.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims for October to December 1996 were maintainable on the plea that the assessments were provisional and therefore outside the limitation prescribed for refund; (ii) Whether the refund claims for January to June 1997 were barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims for October to December 1996 were maintainable on the plea that the assessments were provisional and therefore outside the limitation prescribed for refund.

Analysis: The assessee failed to establish that the relevant assessments were provisional. No request for provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and no permission for such assessment, was shown. The refund applications were filed beyond six months from the relevant dates under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, and the limitation objection therefore survived.

Conclusion: The refund claims for October to December 1996 were time-barred and the assessee's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claims for January to June 1997 were barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The goods were cleared from the depot to buyers, and the invoices did not separately indicate the duty element. Under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, a statutory presumption operates that the duty burden has been passed on unless rebutted. Section 12A required the duty amount to be indicated in the relevant documents, and the assessee did not discharge the burden of proving that the incidence had not been passed on. The alleged credit notes were not supported by evidence and did not rebut the presumption.

Conclusion: The refund claims for January to June 1997 were hit by unjust enrichment and the Revenue's challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the assessee's refund challenge and the allowance of the Revenue's challenge resulted in the refund claim being rejected in substance, with the interest order also falling with the refund.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act fails where the assessee does not prove provisional assessment or rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B that the duty incidence was passed on, and post-clearance credit notes unsupported by evidence are insufficient to displace that presumption.

---