Unjust enrichment bars excise refund where the claimant fails to prove the duty burden was not passed on to buyers.

Refund of duty deposited pursuant to court orders was denied because the claimant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the earlier remand was limited to producing evidence of non-passing of the duty burden, and issues already settled could not be reopened. On the facts, no documentary material showed that the reduced duty had been absorbed without affecting the cum-duty price or that the incidence had not been passed on to buyers. As the claimant did not satisfy Sections 11B and 12B of the Central Excise Act, the refund claim was inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for the amount deposited pursuant to court orders was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and whether the assessee had established that the incidence of duty was not passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the earlier remand was confined to enabling the assessee to produce evidence showing non-passing of the duty burden, and the issues already settled in the prior order could not be re-opened. On the facts, the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence to show that the reduced duty had been absorbed without affecting the cum-duty price or that the burden had not been passed on. In the absence of proof, the statutory presumption under Section 12B operated against the refund claim, and the claim had to satisfy the requirements of Section 11B.

Conclusion: The assessee did not prove that the incidence of duty was borne by it and not passed on to any other person; the refund was therefore not admissible.

Ratio Decidendi: In a refund claim under the Central Excise Act, 1944, the claimant must rebut the statutory presumption that the duty burden was passed on, and where the claimant fails to adduce material evidence of non-passing, refund is barred by unjust enrichment.

---