Unjust enrichment bars excise refund where invoices show duty recovered from the buyer and no convincing rebuttal is produced.

Refund of excise duty was denied where the invoices showed duty separately charged and recovered from the buyer, indicating that the incidence had been passed on. A Chartered Accountant's certificate was held insufficient against the documentary record, and the claimant also failed to produce reliable evidence that buyers had not taken Cenvat credit on the duty reflected in the invoices. The cited precedent was found inapplicable on the facts. The article states that, in such circumstances, the bar of unjust enrichment is not rebutted and refund is not admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the incidence of excise duty had been passed on to the buyer.

Analysis: The invoice showed that duty had been charged and reflected separately at the higher rate, notwithstanding the reduction in duty. The plea that goods were sold on MRP basis and that the price would not change was not accepted because the documentary record disclosed duty recovery from the buyer. The certificate of the Chartered Accountant was insufficient in the face of the invoices, and no reliable evidence was produced to show that the buyers had not taken Cenvat credit on the duty shown in the invoice. The authority relied on a cited precedent but held it inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was not crossed and the refund claim was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of refund was sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where invoices disclose recovery of duty from the buyer, the claimant must rebut unjust enrichment with convincing evidence; failing that, refund is not admissible.

---