Unjust enrichment in excise refund is rebuttable where invoices, debit notes and ledgers show duty remained recoverable from buyers

Excise duty refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where contemporaneous invoices separately showed the duty element, buyers issued debit notes for that duty, and ledger entries reflected the amount as still outstanding from the customers. On that material, the presumption that the duty incidence had been passed on was rebutted, so the refund could not be denied. The prior Revenue authority cited was distinguished because the record here showed that the burden had not been shifted to buyers at the time of clearance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment on the ground that the incidence of excise duty had been passed on to the buyers.

Analysis: The invoices separately indicated the excise duty component, the buyers raised debit notes for the duty element, and the ledgers showed the amount as outstanding against the respective customers. On the material placed, the duty amount remained recoverable from the buyers and the presumption that duty had been passed on stood rebutted. The prior decision relied on by the Revenue was distinguishable because the present record showed that the duty burden had not been shifted to the customers at the time of clearance.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and the assessee was entitled to refund.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption that excise duty has been passed on to the buyer is rebuttable, and refund cannot be denied when contemporaneous invoices, debit notes, and ledger entries establish that the duty incidence remained outstanding from the buyers.

---