Unjust enrichment presumption rebutted where reversed Cenvat credit was not recovered from customers, making refund payable to assessee.

Refund of reversed Cenvat credit was not barred by unjust enrichment where no invoice was raised to recover the amount from customers and a Chartered Accountant certificate, based on the books of account, confirmed that the amount was not transferred to another person. Treating the amount as expenditure or later as a receivable/current asset did not by itself prove that service tax incidence had been passed on. The statutory presumption of passing on was rebutted by evidence, and the principle concerning duty embedded in finished-goods prices was distinguishable because the assessee bore the reversed credit. The refund was payable to the assessee, not the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of reversed Cenvat credit was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the incidence of service tax had been passed on to customers.

Analysis: No invoice was raised to recover the reversed credit from customers, and the Chartered Accountant certificate, based on examination of the books, confirmed that the amount had not been transferred to any other person. The accounting treatment of the amount as expenditure or subsequently as receivable/current asset does not by itself establish passing on of duty. The presumption under Section 12B stood rebutted by the evidence. The principle applicable where duty on imported raw material is embedded in the price of finished goods was distinguishable because the incidence of the reversed credit was actually borne by the assessee.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and was payable to the assessee rather than being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---