Unjust enrichment can bar refund on provisional assessment finalisation when the claimant cannot prove the duty burden was not passed on.

Refund arising on finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not treated in the same manner as an independent refund claim under Section 11B, but the doctrine of unjust enrichment may still apply on the facts. Where the claimant cannot establish that the incidence of duty was not passed on to buyers, refund relief can be denied. The text emphasises that concurrent factual findings on passing of duty burden will ordinarily stand unless shown to be perverse.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund arising on finalisation of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was nevertheless barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment for want of proof that the duty burden had not been passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The Court noted the settled position that refund consequent upon adjustment under Rule 9B on final assessment does not, by itself, attract Section 11B in the same manner as an independent refund claim. However, it held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment can still be invoked on the facts of the case. On the material before it, the appellant had not established that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, and the concurrent findings of the authorities below on that aspect were not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable on the facts, and the appellant was not entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant did not discharge the burden of proving that the duty incidence remained with it, so the denial of refund was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where refund arises from finalisation of provisional assessment, relief can be denied if the claimant fails to prove that the duty burden was not passed on to others.

---