Unjust enrichment in excise refund matters turns on whether the duty burden was passed on to customers.

Refund arising from clearances made on the date duty was reduced was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where buyer confirmations and dealer communications showed that no amount was retained and the benefit of the duty reduction was passed on to customers. The governing principle applied was that refund is available only if the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the ultimate consumer, and the evidence on record satisfied that requirement. The assessee was therefore entitled to the refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment, and whether the evidence showed that the benefit of the duty reduction had been passed on to the ultimate consumers.

Analysis: The refund arose from clearances made on the same date on which Notification No. 74/92-C.E. reduced the duty rate. The evidence on record included confirmations from the buyers and communications from the dealers indicating that no amount was retained by them and that the benefit of the duty reduction had been passed on to the customers. In the light of the principle of unjust enrichment, refund is available only when the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the ultimate consumer.

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

---