Refund claims after finalised assessment must satisfy Section 11B and unjust enrichment; buyer cannot rely on manufacturer's protest payment.

A refund claim made after finalisation of assessment on duty paid under protest is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and must satisfy the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Rule 9B applies only to provisional assessment adjustments and does not displace Section 11B for an independent refund application. A purchaser or distributor cannot step into the manufacturer's position to claim refund merely because the manufacturer paid duty under protest; it must independently prove that the duty incidence was not passed on. The claim therefore depends on separate compliance with refund requirements and proof on unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a refund claim made after finalisation of assessment, where duty had been paid under protest by the manufacturer, was governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracted the doctrine of unjust enrichment. (ii) Whether a purchaser/distributor could claim refund by stepping into the shoes of the manufacturer and rely on the manufacturer's payment under protest without independently satisfying Section 11B.

Issue (i): Whether a refund claim made after finalisation of assessment, where duty had been paid under protest by the manufacturer, was governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and attracted the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: Section 11B deals with claims for refund made by a person who has paid duty, whereas Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 governs provisional assessment and adjustment of duty on final assessment. The judgment held that Rule 9B operates in a distinct sphere and that paragraph 104 of the earlier Constitution Bench decision dealt with refunds consequent upon finalisation of provisional assessment, not with duty paid under protest. An independent refund application made after finalisation of assessment is therefore a claim for refund and must satisfy Section 11B. The amended scheme, introducing unjust enrichment, bars refund unless the applicant establishes that the incidence of duty has not been passed on.

Conclusion: The refund claim was governed by Section 11B and was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The conclusion was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a purchaser/distributor could claim refund by stepping into the shoes of the manufacturer and rely on the manufacturer's payment under protest without independently satisfying Section 11B.

Analysis: The buyer's claim rested on the manufacturer's payment under protest, but the Court held that the manufacturer's accounts and the buyer's accounts are distinct, and a buyer cannot treat the manufacturer's payment as its own on-account payment for refund purposes. The right of the manufacturer to seek refund under protest is separate from the right of a buyer to seek refund. The buyer, having purchased and resold the goods in the course of trade, had to establish independently that it had not passed on the duty burden to its dealers. The Court also held that the lower authorities had not properly examined the buyer's costing and accounting treatment.

Conclusion: The purchaser could not step into the shoes of the manufacturer to avoid compliance with Section 11B, and the refund claim failed on that ground as well. The conclusion was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the respondent's refund claim was required to comply with Section 11B and, in any event, the claim was not established on the merits of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim made after finalisation of assessment on the basis of duty paid under protest is governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and a purchaser cannot claim refund merely by relying on the manufacturer's protest payment unless it independently proves that the duty incidence was not passed on.

---