Unjust enrichment bars central excise refund where duty burden passing on is not disproved, despite payment under protest.

Refund of central excise duty was denied because no record showed provisional assessment or its finalisation, so Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not apply. Payment under protest and compliance with Rule 233B did not displace the statutory refund requirements under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As there was no material to show that the duty incidence had not been passed on, the bar of unjust enrichment remained unaddressed. The refund claim was therefore not admissible and the challenge to the appellate order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment under the Central Excise Act, and whether payment of duty under protest or compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 excluded the application of the refund conditions.

Analysis: The appeal failed on the ground that there was no order on record showing provisional assessment or finalisation of provisional assessment, so Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was not attracted. The Court also held that mere payment under protest and compliance with Rule 233B did not affect the statutory requirement governing refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of material showing that the duty burden had not been passed on, the objection based on unjust enrichment was not displaced.

Conclusion: The refund was not admissible and the challenge to the appellate order failed.

---