Unjust enrichment bars refund of duty paid during investigation where the assessee failed to prove duty incidence was not passed on.

Refund of duty paid during investigation on clearances of dutiable goods manufactured on job work basis was treated as differential duty, not a mere deposit, so the statutory test of unjust enrichment applied under the Central Excise Act. The claimant was required to prove that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to another person, and that burden was not discharged on the facts. The refund claim was therefore barred by unjust enrichment, and the rejection of refund was upheld in favour of Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of duty paid during investigation was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The duty had been paid in relation to clearances of dutiable goods manufactured on job work basis, and the amount paid was treated as differential duty rather than a mere deposit. Refund of duty is subject to the statutory test of unjust enrichment, and the claimant must establish that the incidence of duty was not passed on. On the facts, that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The refund claim was correctly held to be barred by unjust enrichment and the orders rejecting refund were sustainable, in favour of Revenue.

---