Unjust Enrichment determination: refund denied to claimant where absence of buyer-wise ledger proof persisted after remand.

The article addresses whether a refund under Section 11B could be paid to the claimant rather than credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, focusing on proof against unjust enrichment. The governing principle applied is that refund entitlement requires demonstration that the incidence of higher duty was not passed on; this required production of buyer-wise ledgers on remand. The claimant repeatedly failed to produce those ledgers, and the factual finding that unjust enrichment was not disproven rests on that evidentiary absence and non-compliance with remand directions, resulting in crediting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant proved that there would be no unjust enrichment such that the refund claimed under Section 11B could be granted to the appellant instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12C, having failed to produce buyer-wise ledgers despite opportunities and a remand.

Analysis: The dispute is fact-based concerning whether the incidence of the higher excise duty was passed on to buyers. The authorities remanded the matter for production and examination of buyer-wise ledgers to determine unjust enrichment. The appellant did not produce the required buyer ledgers despite repeated opportunities and the specific directions on remand. On the available record, the factual finding that the appellant failed to establish absence of unjust enrichment is supported by the lack of buyer-wise ledger evidence and the remand compliance requirement under the statutory scheme governing refunds.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish that there would be no unjust enrichment; the refund was rightly directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and the appeal is against the appellant.

---