Unjust enrichment not established by statutory invoice disclosure, and no substantial question of law arose on fact-based excise findings.

A fact-based controversy under Section 35-G did not raise a substantial question of law because the dispute depended on findings already considered by the Tribunal, so the Revenue could not recast those findings as a legal issue. On refund, invoice particulars furnished under Rule 52A in compliance with the prescribed excise format did not, by themselves, establish that duty had been passed on to the buyer. The statutory disclosure therefore did not trigger unjust enrichment, and refund could not be denied on that basis. The appeal failed on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 gave rise to any substantial question of law; and (ii) whether the particulars shown in the invoice issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 attracted the doctrine of unjust enrichment so as to defeat the assessee's claim for refund.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the appreciation of material already considered by the Tribunal and did not involve any debatable legal issue warranting interference in appeal. The Court treated the matter as one based on findings of fact and held that the revenue could not convert those findings into a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the issue was against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the particulars shown in the invoice issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 attracted the doctrine of unjust enrichment so as to defeat the assessee's claim for refund.

Analysis: Rule 52A required excisable goods to be removed only under a prescribed invoice containing specified particulars, including assessable value, rate of duty and total duty paid. The invoice entries relied upon by the revenue were made in compliance with this statutory mandate and did not show that the assessee had recovered duty from the buyer as an extra consideration. On that basis, the statutory disclosure could not by itself establish passing on of duty.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment was not attracted; the issue was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the dispute did not involve a substantial question of law and the invoice particulars furnished under the prescribed excise procedure did not justify denial of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where invoice particulars are furnished in compliance with a statutory excise requirement, such disclosure does not, by itself, establish passing on of duty for the purpose of unjust enrichment, and a fact-based controversy of that nature does not necessarily raise a substantial question of law.

---