Unjust enrichment bars excise duty refund unless the claimant proves duty incidence was not passed on with primary evidence.

Refund of excise duty under Section 11B is available only where the claimant proves that the duty was paid by it and that the incidence was not passed on to another person. Sections 12A and 12B create a statutory presumption of passing on the duty unless the contrary is established, so the claimant must rebut that presumption with convincing primary evidence. Chartered Accountant's certificates, balance sheets and ledger entries were treated as insufficient by themselves to show non-passing of duty. The discussion also notes that later judicial declarations on refund and self-assessment were to be followed under Article 141, and that any sanctioned amount not shown refundable would be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of excise duty was admissible or was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and whether the appellant had rebutted the statutory presumption that the duty incidence had been passed on.

Analysis: Refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is available only when the claimant establishes that the duty was paid by it and that the incidence of such duty was not passed on to any other person. Sections 12A and 12B create a statutory framework requiring declaration of duty in the sale documents and raising a presumption that the duty incidence has been passed on unless the contrary is proved. The documents relied upon by the appellant, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate, balance sheet and ledger entries, were treated as insufficient because they did not conclusively establish non-passing of duty to buyers. The reasoning also proceeded on the basis that later judicial declarations on the scope of refund and self-assessment had to be followed under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment and the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption; the issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not be sustained because the refund was not shown to be recoverable by the appellant and the sanctioned amount was held to be liable for credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of excise duty under Section 11B is admissible only on proof that the duty incidence has not been passed on, and generalized accounting records or a Chartered Accountant's certificate, without primary evidence, do not by themselves rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B.

---