Excise duty refund and unjust enrichment: evidence showed the duty was borne by the appellant, so refund was not barred.

Refund of excise duty was treated as maintainable where ONGC discharged the duty from the appellant's encashed bank guarantee, and the certificate from ONGC confirmed that the duty was paid from that amount. The absence of duty-paying documents in the appellant's name was held immaterial on these facts because the duty was in substance borne in relation to the appellant's purchase. The sale had occurred before the duty payment, and the books, affidavit, and ONGC certificate showed that the burden had not been passed on to any customer or other person. On that evidence, unjust enrichment did not apply and the refund claim was not barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of excise duty paid by ONGC from the amount recovered by encashing the appellant's bank guarantee, and whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment for want of proof that the incidence of duty had not been passed on.

Analysis: The amount of excise duty had been paid by ONGC out of the bank guarantee furnished by the appellant, and the certificate issued by ONGC gated that the duty was discharged from that encashed amount. The absence of duty-paying documents in the appellant's name was held immaterial in these facts, since the duty had in substance been borne in relation to the appellant's purchase. The sale of the goods had occurred long before the duty was paid, and the accounting treatment in the books, together with the affidavit and the ONGC certificate, showed that the amount was not recovered from any customer or other person. On that evidence, the bar of unjust enrichment was found not to apply.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to refund, and the rejection of the claim was unsustainable.

---