Unjust enrichment bars central excise refund where duty incidence was passed on and cum-duty pricing was shown.

A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 succeeds only if the claimant proves that the incidence of duty was not passed on. Here, no satisfactory evidence showed that the duty burden was retained by the assessee, and the record indicated clearance of goods at cum-duty price, supporting transfer of incidence to buyers. The claim was therefore barred by unjust enrichment and denied on that ground. The limitation objection based on alleged protest was not disturbed, as the appellate finding on limitation was not challenged by the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation in view of the alleged protest; (ii) Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation in view of the alleged protest.

Analysis: The refund dispute was governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The protest relied on by the assessee was not accepted as a valid protest under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 at the original stage, but the appellate authority did not reject the claim on limitation. In the absence of any challenge by the Revenue to that finding, the limitation aspect was not open to disturbance in the present appeal.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not rejected on limitation and this aspect stood in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: Under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the claimant had to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. No satisfactory evidence was produced before the appellate authority or the Tribunal to show that the duty burden was retained by the assessee. The record instead showed that the goods were cleared at cum-duty price, indicating transfer of the duty incidence to buyers.

Conclusion: The refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment and failed on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order rejecting the refund claim was sustained, with the limitation aspect left undisturbed and the refund denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 succeeds only if the claimant proves that the duty incidence was not passed on, and a refund supported by cum-duty pricing without such proof is barred by unjust enrichment.

---