Unjust enrichment in excise refund fails when accounts and a Chartered Accountant's certificate show duty incidence was not passed on.

Refund of excess central excise duty could not be denied on unjust enrichment where the assessee supported non-passing of duty incidence with ledger accounts and a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The department failed to produce evidence that the excess duty had been recovered from buyers, and the earlier sanction of refund after verification remained undisturbed on the factual record. On that basis, the documentary evidence was treated as sufficient to show that the duty burden had not been passed on, so the refund was held not barred by unjust enrichment and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of excess central excise duty was barred by unjust enrichment and whether the assessee had established that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The assessee produced its ledger account showing the excess duty as recoverable from the Revenue and also filed a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The department did not produce material to show that the excess duty of Rs. 24 lakhs had been recovered from customers. In such circumstances, the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was sufficient to establish that the burden of duty had not been passed on. The refund had originally been sanctioned after verification, and the impugned order did not dislodge that factual basis.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of refund was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee substantiates non-passing of duty incidence through reliable accounts and a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and the department fails to prove recovery from buyers, the refund cannot be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

---