Unjust enrichment cannot be inferred from accounting entries alone; CA certificates supported refund of reversed CENVAT credit.

Refund of reversed CENVAT credit cannot be denied on unjust enrichment merely because the reversal was booked as expenditure in the accounts. An accounting entry by itself does not prove that duty incidence was passed on to customers unless there is evidence of a corresponding price increase or recovery from buyers. Chartered Accountant certificates and the absence of debit notes or supplementary invoices were treated as reliable evidence that the amount had not been recovered. On that basis, crediting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund was held unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to refund with applicable interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of reversed CENVAT credit was correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment, and whether Chartered Accountant certificates and the surrounding accounting treatment established that the duty incidence had not been passed on.

Analysis: The refund could not be denied merely because the reversed credit was shown as expenditure in the books of account. Such accounting entry, by itself, does not establish passing on of duty incidence to customers unless there is evidence of a corresponding increase in sale price or recovery from customers. The Chartered Accountant certificates stated that the claimant had not recovered the amount from customers and no debit notes or supplementary invoices were issued to recoup the duty amount or interest. The certificates were treated as reliable documentary evidence and as expert opinion, while the refusal to accept them rested on an incorrect understanding of accounting principles and unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment, and the credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable. The assessee was entitled to refund with applicable interest.

---