Refund limitation and unjust enrichment principles barred claims where clearances were final and provisional assessment was not shown.

Refund under Section 11B was held unavailable where clearances were made on final prices and the record contained no price list, declaration, or intimation showing that prices were provisional or subject to revision. In the absence of a formal provisional assessment or departmental awareness of unsettled pricing, the limitation period applied and the refund claims were time-barred. A chartered accountant's certificate alone was insufficient to establish that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and the assessee failed to meet that burden. The refund claim was therefore not sustainable, and the original rejection was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation and could be treated as arising from provisional assessment; (ii) Whether the assessee had established that the incidence of duty had not been passed on.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claims were barred by limitation and could be treated as arising from provisional assessment?

Analysis: The claims related to clearances made on final prices, and there was no price list, declaration, or intimation to the Department showing that the prices were provisional or subject to revision. The factual foundation that supported the earlier decisions on provisional assessment was absent. In the absence of a formal provisional assessment or departmental awareness that the price was unsettled, the limitation under Section 11B applied.

Conclusion: The claims were barred by limitation and could not be treated as provisional.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had established that the incidence of duty had not been passed on?

Analysis: A chartered accountant's certificate, by itself, was not sufficient proof that the duty burden had remained with the assessee. Since the refund was already untenable on merits because of limitation, the evidentiary basis for non-passing of duty was also not made out to the required standard.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to establish non-passing of the duty burden.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim was not sustainable, and the original rejection by the Assistant Commissioner stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under Section 11B is not available where the duty was paid on final clearances without any demonstrated provisional assessment, and a mere retrospective price reduction does not displace the statutory limitation or prove that the duty incidence was not passed on.

---