Unjust enrichment and excise refund: unchanged sale price alone does not prove the duty burden was not passed on.

A refund claim arising from differential excise duty was examined through the unjust enrichment test, with the key question being whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to buyers. The mere fact that the sale price remained unchanged before and after the duty reduction was held insufficient to disprove passing on, because price stability may result from several commercial factors and is not conclusive evidence. The later coordinate view was preferred over the earlier one. On that basis, the refund was treated as barred by unjust enrichment and the rejection of refund was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from differential excise duty was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the incidence of duty had been passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The sale price remaining the same before and after the reduction in duty did not by itself establish that the duty burden was not passed on. Uniformity of price may result from several commercial factors and, by itself, is not conclusive proof against passing on of duty. Where later authority has taken a different view from an earlier coordinate view, the later view is to be followed.

Conclusion: The refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order rejecting the refund was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere maintenance of the same sale price before and after a duty-related event does not, by itself, prove that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the buyer.

---