Unjust enrichment in excise refund requires proof that duty was not passed on beyond the immediate dealer to the final consumer.

Refund on finalisation of provisional assessment requires the claimant to rebut the Section 12B presumption and prove that the duty incidence was not passed on under Section 11B. The expression "buyer" is not limited to the first purchaser and may extend to the ultimate consumer, so proof confined to the immediate dealer is insufficient. Verification of unjust enrichment must therefore cover the downstream chain up to the final buyer; where that verification is absent, refund sanction is not legally complete and the matter requires fresh examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a claimant seeking refund on finalisation of provisional assessment must establish that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the ultimate buyer; (ii) Whether refund orders can be sustained without verification extending beyond the immediate dealer to the ultimate customer.

Issue (i): Whether a claimant seeking refund on finalisation of provisional assessment must establish that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the ultimate buyer.

Analysis: Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 creates a rebuttable presumption that the incidence of duty has been passed on to the buyer. Refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available only when the claimant establishes that the duty was borne by it and that the burden was not passed on to any other person. The expression "buyer" is not confined to the first buyer and may extend downstream to the ultimate customer.

Conclusion: The claimant must conclusively show that the duty burden did not reach the ultimate buyer; proof limited to the immediate dealer is insufficient.

Issue (ii): Whether refund orders can be sustained without verification extending beyond the immediate dealer to the ultimate customer.

Analysis: The record showed only limited verification regarding the first buyers, while the materials did not establish that the dealers had not passed on the duty incidence further downstream. In the light of the principles reiterated in the governing precedent, verification of nil unjust enrichment must extend to the stage of the ultimate consumer. Where such verification is absent, the refund sanction cannot be treated as legally complete.

Conclusion: The refund sanction could not be sustained without further verification up to the ultimate customer.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh verification on unjust enrichment, with directions to examine whether the duty burden had been borne throughout the chain up to the final buyer.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the excise law succeeds only if the claimant proves that the duty incidence was not passed on at any stage to another person, including the ultimate consumer, and limited verification at the dealer level does not satisfy that requirement.

---