Unjust enrichment bars post-amendment excise refund where the claimant cannot prove duty was not passed on.

After the amendment of Rule 9B by Notification No. 45/99-CE(NT) dated 25.06.1999, refund claims for the later period were subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Uniform or identical sale prices were held insufficient, by themselves, to show that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. As the appellant produced no material before the lower authority or the Tribunal to discharge that burden, the further refund was rejected. Refund for the period up to 24.06.1999 remained undisturbed, but the later claim failed on unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for the period after 25.06.1999 was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment and whether the appellant proved that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers.

Analysis: The refund for the period up to 24.06.1999 was correctly granted, but after the amendment of Rule 9B of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 by Notification No. 45/99-CE(NT) dated 25.06.1999, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to refund claims. Mere uniformity of sale price did not establish that the duty burden had not been passed on. The appellant also failed to produce material before the lower authority or the Tribunal to discharge the burden of proving absence of passing on of duty.

Conclusion: The refund claim for the later period was hit by unjust enrichment and the appellant was not entitled to further refund.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order granting refund only up to 24.06.1999 was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: After the amendment of Rule 9B, a refund claim is subject to unjust enrichment, and identical or uniform pricing by itself does not prove that the incidence of duty was not passed on.

---