Unjust enrichment does not bar excise refund where trade discounts were accepted at final assessment and duty was not passed to consumers.

Refund of differential central excise duty arising from trade discounts accepted at final assessment could not be refused on unjust enrichment grounds. The assessment had been provisional, the discount particulars were furnished and accepted at finalisation, and the refund claim flowed from that process. The court noted that the duty had not been shown to be collected from the end consumer, as the discounts were passed on to wholesale distributors through credit notes at the prescribed stage of clearance. Reliance on a different factual scenario was found misplaced, and the contrary tribunal view was treated as inconsistent with an identical matter decided by the same court.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of differential central excise duty arising from trade discounts allowed at the stage of final assessment could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The assessment was initially provisional, and at the stage of final assessment the discount particulars were furnished and accepted as permissible. The refund claim arose from that finalisation. The Court held that the case did not involve collection of duty from the end consumer in a manner attracting unjust enrichment. The discounts were extended to wholesale distributors through credit notes at the prescribed stage of clearance, and the burden of duty was not shown to have passed on to the end customer. The Tribunal's reliance on a different factual situation was held to be misplaced, and the decision was also found inconsistent with the view taken in an identical matter by this Court.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment, and the assessee was entitled to succeed.

---