Unjust enrichment does not bar excise refund where physician samples are free supplies and exemption is established.

Physician samples distributed free of cost and covered by an exemption notification were not subject to the presumption of duty being passed on to buyers, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not bar refund of excise duty already paid. On that factual basis, the refund was correctly sanctioned and the remand order directing reconsideration of the claim was unsustainable. The order of remand was set aside, and the assessee's refund entitlement was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of excise duty paid on physician samples distributed free of cost was barred by unjust enrichment and whether the remand order directing reconsideration of the refund claim was sustainable.

Analysis: The physician samples were exempt from central excise duty under the applicable exemption notification, and they were distributed free of cost. In such a factual setting, there was no scope to presume passing on of the duty burden to any buyer, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. Since the exemption itself was not in dispute and the refund had been correctly sanctioned, the remand order lacked merit.

Conclusion: The refund was held to be rightly granted and the remand order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the orders passed pursuant to the impugned remand could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are distributed free of cost and the exemption is otherwise established, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar refund of duty already paid.

---