Unjust enrichment in excise refund claims: documentary evidence showed duty incidence was not passed on, so refund remained payable.

Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the assessee produced books of account entries, chartered accountant certificates and customer certificates showing that the duty incidence had not been passed on and that no Cenvat credit had been taken. The authorities were found not to have properly appreciated this documentary evidence before ordering credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The refund was therefore payable to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from finalisation of provisional assessment was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund claim arose after provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, where the assessee had initially paid duty on invoices issued under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and later issued credit notes after finalisation of discounts. The records showed that the claimed amount was reflected as receivable in the books of account, supported by chartered accountant certificates and customer certificates stating that the duty incidence had not been passed on and that no Cenvat credit had been taken. The lower authorities did not properly appreciate this documentary evidence before directing credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment and was payable to the assessee.

---