Unjust enrichment barred refund claims on depot clearances where excess excise duty was not proven to remain unrecovered from buyers.

Refund claims arising from depot clearances were required to satisfy the unjust enrichment bar under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 by proving that excess duty paid was not passed on to buyers. The claimant relied on Chartered Accountant certificates and price data, but these only showed that duty paid at the factory gate exceeded duty payable on the relevant valuation basis. As depot invoices did not separately show excise duty and the full invoice amount was recovered from buyers, the evidence supported a presumption that the duty burden had been transferred. The cited authorities were distinguished on their facts, and the refund claims were therefore not admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims arising from depot clearances were barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Prices of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.

Analysis: The refund claimant had to establish that the duty paid in excess of the duty payable under Rule 7 had not been passed on to the buyers. The evidence relied upon, including Chartered Accountant certificates and price data, showed only that the duty paid at the factory gate exceeded the duty payable on the relevant valuation basis. There was no sufficient proof that the excess duty had not been recovered from the ultimate buyers. The depot invoices did not separately disclose excise duty, and the entire invoice amount was recovered from the buyers, supporting the presumption that the duty burden had been passed on. The cited authorities were distinguished on their facts and did not assist the claimant.

Conclusion: The refund claims were hit by unjust enrichment and were not admissible.

---