Unjust enrichment bar defeats excise duty refund where books and invoices show duty incidence was passed on to buyers.

Refund of central excise duty paid under protest was examined against the bar of unjust enrichment. The tribunal relied on invoices, the range office verification report, and profit and loss accounts and balance sheets, which showed that duty was reflected in invoices, recovered from customers in most cases, and booked as expenditure rather than as a receivable from the Government. Chartered Accountant certificates and buyer confirmations were found insufficient to displace that documentary evidence. The refund was therefore treated as barred by unjust enrichment and inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of central excise duty paid under protest was barred by unjust enrichment because the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers.

Analysis: The refund claim was examined on the basis of the invoices, the range office verification report, and the appellant's profit and loss accounts and balance sheets. The record showed that excise duty was reflected in invoices and, in the majority of cases, the invoice value including duty had been recovered from customers. The duty amount was also shown as expenditure in the accounts and not as receivable from the Government. In these circumstances, the Chartered Accountant certificate and buyer confirmations were not accepted as sufficient to displace the documentary evidence showing passing on of the duty incidence. The principle governing refund under the unjust enrichment bar was therefore applied.

Conclusion: The refund was held to be hit by unjust enrichment and was not admissible to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty paid under protest is shown as expenditure in the books and the surrounding evidence shows recovery of the duty element from customers, the refund is barred by unjust enrichment under section 11B.

---