Excise duty refund must follow amended refund rules, including unjust enrichment limits and Consumer Welfare Fund treatment.

Excise duty refund had to be recalculated under the later Full Bench ruling on the computation provision, and the authority was required to apply that interpretation while determining the amount payable. The refund claim also had to conform to the amended refund scheme introducing unjust enrichment: refund depended on proof that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and any refundable sum was to be dealt with through the Consumer Welfare Fund mechanism rather than direct payment. The refund direction was therefore modified to operate under the amended statutory framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund amount had to be determined in accordance with the Full Bench ruling on the Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the refund order could survive the amended Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which introduced the doctrine of unjust enrichment and required credit of refundable duty to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Issue (i): Whether the refund amount had to be determined in accordance with the Full Bench ruling on the Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The later Full Bench ruling governed the computation of refund, and the authority had to apply that law while determining the amount payable.

Conclusion: The refund was required to be recalculated in accordance with the Full Bench decision.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund order could survive the amended Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which introduced the doctrine of unjust enrichment and required credit of refundable duty to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The amended refund scheme made refund conditional on proof that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and any refundable amount was to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund rather than paid out directly.

Conclusion: The refund direction was held to operate only subject to the amended Section 11B and the consumer welfare fund mechanism.

Final Conclusion: The refund order was modified so that entitlement and payment were governed by the amended statutory scheme, and the appeal succeeded accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of excise duty must conform to the governing statutory refund provisions as amended, including the bar against unjust enrichment and the requirement that refundable amounts be dealt with in the manner prescribed by the statute.

---