Unjust enrichment bars excise refund where duty burden is not proved to remain with the assessee under a composite price contract.

A central excise refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment because the assessee did not rebut the presumption that the duty incidence had been passed on to buyers. The goods were sold under a composite contract price, and duty had been charged from the outset, which supported the presumption of pass-through. As no evidence was produced to show that the burden remained with the assessee, the refund was not admissible and the claim was directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of central excise duty was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the buyers. No evidence was produced to rebut that burden. The goods were sold under contract at a composite price and duty had been paid from the beginning, giving rise to a presumption that the duty burden stood passed on. That presumption remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly treated as barred by unjust enrichment and there was no ground to interfere with the order under challenge.

Final Conclusion: The refund was not admissible to the assessee and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a refund claim for excise duty, where the assessee fails to produce evidence rebutting the presumption that duty incidence was passed on under a composite contracted price, the claim is barred by unjust enrichment.

---