Unjust enrichment and excise refund: supported factual finding that duty burden was not passed on sustained the claim.

Refund of excise duty is barred by unjust enrichment only if the duty incidence was actually passed on to the buyer. The Supreme Court noted that whether the burden has been passed on is a question of fact, and the contract documents, correspondence, and railway administration certificate showed that the price was fixed either inclusive of duty or with duty shown as nil, without separate recovery from the buyer. As the Tribunal's factual finding was supported by material, it was not disturbed, and the refund was held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for excise duty was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the duty burden had been passed on to the railway administration.

Analysis: The refund of duty is denied under the doctrine of unjust enrichment only where the duty burden is in fact passed on to the buyer. Whether such burden has been passed on is essentially a question of fact. On the material on record, the contract documents, correspondence and certificate from the railway administration indicated that in the relevant transactions the price was fixed either inclusive of excise duty or with excise duty shown as nil, and the authorities found that the respondent had not recovered the duty separately from the buyer. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal was supported by material and did not call for interference.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was not attracted, and the refund claim was maintainable in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the factual finding that the duty incidence had not been passed on was upheld, leaving no basis to deny refund on unjust enrichment grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of duty is barred by unjust enrichment only if the claimant has passed on the duty incidence to the buyer, and a supported factual finding on that issue will not be disturbed in appeal absent perversity.

---