Unjust Enrichment in Excise Refunds: Documentary evidence defeated presumption of passing on duty and secured refund to the assessee

Refund of excise duty paid under protest was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the assessee substantiated, through balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, annual reports and Chartered Accountant-certified statements, that the disputed amount remained a receivable and the burden had not been passed on to buyers. A composite invoice showing a price inclusive of excise duty was found insufficient by itself to create a presumption of passing on the duty incidence. On that basis, credit of the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable and the refund was payable to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of excise duty, paid under protest at a higher rate, was liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment, or was payable to the assessee.

Analysis: The assessee produced balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, annual reports, and Chartered Accountant-certified statements showing the disputed amount as a claim receivable and explaining the relevant entries in the financial schedules. These materials supported the assessee's case that the excess duty burden had not been passed on to buyers. A mere composite invoice indicating a price inclusive of excise duty was held insufficient, by itself, to raise a presumption that the duty incidence had been passed on, particularly in light of the Tribunal's earlier view on the point.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and was payable to the assessee; credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable.

---