Unjust enrichment bars excise refund where there is no proof that the duty burden was not passed on.

Refund of excise duty was examined against the bar of unjust enrichment, where the claimant had paid duty on a higher assessable value and sought refund of the excess. The central question was whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to buyers; the record did not contain acceptable evidence to support the finding that the burden remained with the manufacturer, and the inference drawn from stock transfers to C & F agents and area-specific pricing was insufficient. In the absence of proof that the duty had not been passed on, the refund claim was not maintainable and the refund order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred on the ground that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers, attracting the principle of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund was claimed on the footing that duty had been paid at a higher assessable value for one market and that excess duty resulted from using a higher value meant for another area. The appellate authority's view that the burden had not been passed on rested on an inference that the manufacturer had transferred stock to C & F agents and charged only the area-specific price. The record, however, contained no acceptable evidence supporting that conclusion. In the absence of proof showing that the duty burden had not been passed on, the refund claim could not succeed.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and the order granting refund was set aside.

---