Unjust enrichment in excise refund: buyer certification and lack of contrary evidence defeated the Revenue's challenge.

Refund of excise duty paid on clearance to a 100% export oriented unit was not barred by unjust enrichment where the goods were otherwise eligible for clearance without duty and duty was paid only because departmental permission was delayed. The buyer's certificate stated that no excise duty had been paid to the supplier and that no refund had been or would be claimed by it, and the Revenue did not dispute that certificate. Mere reflection of duty in invoices was insufficient, by itself, to show that the duty burden had been passed on to the customer, so no further evidence was required to disprove passing on.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of excise duty paid on clearance to a 100% export oriented unit was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The goods were otherwise eligible for clearance without payment of duty, but duty was paid only because permission from the department was delayed. The buyer, a 100% export oriented unit, issued a certificate stating that no excise duty had been paid to the supplier and that no refund had been or would be claimed by it. The Revenue did not controvert this certificate. Mere reflection of duty in invoices was held insufficient, by itself, to establish that the duty burden had been passed on to the customer. On these facts, the respondent was not required to produce further evidence to disprove passing on of duty.

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

---