Unjust enrichment applies to compounded levy refunds where excise duty burden is not proved to remain with the claimant.

Duty paid under the Compounded Levy Scheme remained duty of excise, so any refund claim was governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The claimant had to show that the excess duty had not been passed on to buyers, but no evidence of differential pricing or other material was produced to rebut that presumption. In the absence of proof that the duty burden was not transferred, the refund claim was not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty paid under the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was refundable without attracting the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Duty paid under the Compounded Levy Scheme is still duty of excise. A refund claim for such payment is therefore governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The claimant produced no evidence to show that the excess duty had not been passed on to buyers, and no material such as differential pricing was placed on record to substantiate the claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable in the absence of proof rebutting unjust enrichment, and the claim was rightly rejected.

---