Refund of wrongly paid excise duty cannot be denied merely because the exemption notification does not expressly provide refund.

Refund of excise duty wrongly paid could not be denied merely because the relevant notification granted exemption rather than an express refund mechanism. The Tribunal treated the duty payment as refundable and found that the assessee had shown, through a Chartered Accountant's certificate, that the burden was borne by it. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the Revenue, the plea of unjust enrichment failed on the facts. The High Court therefore held that the refund claim was not barred on the stated grounds and that the Revenue's challenge did not raise any substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty wrongly paid could be denied on the ground that the exemption notification provided only exemption and not refund, and whether the claim was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The respondent had paid excise duty on Bitumen purchased for use in a project covered by Notification No. 108/95 dated 28.08.1995 and later sought refund. The authorities rejected the claim on the footing that the notification was only an exemption notification, that the claim was time barred, and that the burden of duty had been passed on. The Tribunal accepted that a wrongly paid duty amount could be claimed by way of refund notwithstanding the description of the notification as an exemption notification, and held that the respondent had produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing that the duty had been borne by it. In the absence of any contrary evidence from the Revenue, the adverse finding on unjust enrichment was only presumptive.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be denied on the stated grounds, and the Revenue's challenge gave rise to no substantial question of law.

---