Unjust enrichment in excise refund fails when contemporaneous records prove duty incidence was not passed on to buyers.

Refund of excise duty is not barred by unjust enrichment where contemporaneous invoices, accounts and a Chartered Accountant's certificate show that only the commercial invoice amount was realised and the higher duty shown in excise invoices was not collected from buyers. The assessee thus rebutted the statutory presumption that duty incidence had been passed on, and the refund remained admissible. Authorities turned on different factual settings were treated as inapplicable. The operative principle is that reliable evidence, not a mere presumption or price similarity, is required to establish passing on of duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of excise duty was barred by unjust enrichment, and whether the assessee had rebutted the statutory presumption that the incidence of duty was passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee raised excise invoices and commercial invoices of even date, and the appellate authority accepted the evidence on record, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate, invoices, and accounts, to hold that only the amount reflected in the commercial invoices was realised. The Court found that the assessee had not collected the higher duty shown in the excise invoices and had discharged the burden of proving that the duty incidence was not passed on. The Revenue's reliance on authorities dealing with different factual situations was held to be inapplicable.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund was held admissible to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim is not barred by unjust enrichment where the assessee produces reliable contemporaneous evidence showing that the duty incidence was not passed on, and a mere presumption or similarity of price does not by itself establish passing on of duty.

---