Unjust enrichment does not bar excise refund where invoice duty was never actually collected from the buyer.

Refund of excise duty paid in cash on exempt clearances was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the duty shown in the invoices had not actually been collected from the buyer. The decisive factual basis was that there was no evidence that the duty burden had been passed on, unlike cases involving collection followed by later adjustment through credit notes. On those facts, the refund claim was admissible in cash because the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty paid in cash on exempt clearances was barred by unjust enrichment when the duty shown in the invoices was not actually collected from the buyer.

Analysis: The claim arose from clearances later found eligible for exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. The decisive fact was that the assessee had not received the duty amount reflected in the invoices from the buyer. The authorities relied on cases where duty had been collected and later adjusted by credit notes, but in the present matter there was no collection of duty from the buyer and no material to show that the duty burden had been passed on. On the established facts, the principle of unjust enrichment was not attracted, and the assessee was entitled to refund in cash.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and was admissible to the assessee in cash.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty shown in the invoice is not actually collected from the buyer, and the burden of duty is not passed on, refund of such duty is not barred by unjust enrichment.

---