Refund of excess excise duty depends on documentary proof rebutting unjust enrichment and showing the burden was not passed on.

Refund of excess excise duty under Section 11B is admissible where documentary evidence shows the excess payment was inadvertently made, recorded in the books, and not passed on to any other person. Balance sheets, Chartered Accountant's certificate, ER-1 returns, reconciliation statements and internal certification were treated as sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment under Section 12B. On that basis, the refund claim was accepted and the unjust enrichment objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to refund of excess excise duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the bar of unjust enrichment under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stood rebutted on the basis of the documentary evidence produced.

Analysis: The refund claim was supported by balance sheets, Chartered Accountant's certificate, ER-1 details, reconciliation statements, and certification by the company's senior manager showing that the excess debit arose from inadvertent payment and that the relevant amount was reflected in the books of account. The material also showed that only the seven identified invoices were issued for the relevant performance incentive and that the excess amount was not passed on to any other person. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted these documents and held that the statutory requirements for refund were satisfied, with the presumption under Section 12B rebutted by the evidence on record.

Conclusion: The respondent was held entitled to the refund claim, and the objection based on unjust enrichment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of excise duty is admissible when credible documentary evidence establishes that the excess duty was actually borne by the claimant and the incidence of duty was not passed on, thereby rebutting the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment.

---