Unjust enrichment bars excise refund where duty is not separately shown in invoices and passing on cannot be ruled out.

Refund claims under the amended excise framework were examined through the unjust enrichment doctrine. The Tribunal applied the principle that the claimant must prove the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers, and held that a composite price with no separate duty disclosure does not by itself establish that the assessee absorbed the burden. Following its earlier view in the same appellant's matter, it concluded that the refund was barred by unjust enrichment and rejected the claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment, where the duty was not shown separately in the invoices and the incidence of duty was alleged to have been passed on to the buyers.

Analysis: The refund arose in the context of the amended excise refund framework and the question was whether the claimant had established that the duty burden had not been passed on. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the appellant's own case and applied the principle that when a composite price is shown and duty is not separately indicated, it cannot be presumed that the burden of duty was absorbed by the assessee. On that basis, the refund claim was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In refund matters governed by unjust enrichment, the claimant must establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the buyer; a composite price without separate disclosure of duty does not by itself show that the burden was borne by the assessee.

---