Unjust enrichment bars excise refund where duty was passed on and a later credit note does not rebut the burden transfer.

Where excise duty was charged in the invoice and passed on to the buyer at the time of clearance, a later credit note did not by itself prove that the duty burden had not been transferred. The Tribunal applied the bar of unjust enrichment because the record showed the buyer had initially sought refund on an exemption basis and then withdrawn that claim, indicating that incidence of duty had already been borne by the buyer. The refund claim was therefore rejected, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment when the excise duty had been charged in the invoice and a subsequent credit note was issued after clearance of the goods.

Analysis: The duty was collected from the buyer at the time of supply, and the record showed that the buyer had initially pursued refund on the premise of exemption before withdrawing that claim. The subsequent credit note did not establish that the duty burden had not been passed on. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that issuance of credit notes after clearance does not by itself rebut unjust enrichment where the incidence of duty had already been passed to the buyer.

Conclusion: The refund was barred by unjust enrichment and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excise duty has been passed on to the buyer at the time of clearance, a later credit note does not by itself displace the bar of unjust enrichment for refund.

---