Unjust enrichment in excise refund depends on proof that duty incidence was not passed on to buyers.

Excess excise duty refund turns on unjust enrichment where the taxpayer must show that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. The invoices and calculation sheet indicated that the customer discount covered both the price reduction and the duty component, and the lower authorities failed to properly consider that documentary evidence. On the material available, the appellant established that the excess duty was not recovered from buyers and therefore satisfied the burden of proving no unjust enrichment, making the refund claim maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant established that the excess excise duty paid on clearances made under the original price list was not passed on to buyers, so as to overcome the bar of unjust enrichment and become entitled to refund.

Analysis: The invoices and calculation sheet showed that the discount granted to customers included the price reduction as well as the duty component. The lower authorities did not properly account for this documentary evidence while examining whether the incidence of duty had been passed on. On the material on record, the appellant demonstrated that excess duty had not been recovered from buyers.

Conclusion: The appellant had discharged the burden of unjust enrichment and was entitled to refund.

---