Unjust enrichment in central excise refund fails where duty was paid under protest and no passing on is proved.

A refund claim under central excise was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where duty on intermediate goods had been paid under protest and the evidence did not show that the duty burden was passed on to buyers. The Tribunal accepted that the final products were exempt, and the assessee's books and pricing material supported the position that the incidence remained with the assessee. On that basis, the rejection of refund on unjust enrichment was found unsustainable, and the refund claim succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment and therefore not admissible under the central excise refund provisions.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from duty paid under protest on intermediate goods used in the manufacture of exempt final products. The decisive question was whether the duty burden had been passed on to buyers. On the record, the Tribunal accepted that the final products were exempt, the duty had been paid under protest, and the assessee's books and pricing evidence did not dislodge the claim that the incidence was borne by the assessee. The earlier remand and the cited precedent supported reconsideration of the refund claim on the material relating to unjust enrichment, and the Tribunal found no merit in the rejection based on that ground.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In a refund claim under the central excise law, once the assessee shows that duty was paid under protest and the evidence does not establish passing on of the duty burden, the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply.

---