JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.— This is an appeal by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has held that the Assessee is entitled to refund. The Assessee by an arithmetical mistake paid the highest amount of duty as per purchase order dated 5-2-2002 of M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. The price of the Unit at Lot-3a is Rs. 23,23,240/-whereas the price of the Unit at Lot-3b-1 is Rs. 24,96,275/- and the differential value works out to Rs. 1,73,035/- per Unit. The Assessee had cleared three Units and the total differential value is Rs. 5,19,105/-. The excess duty at 16% was paid which works out to Rs. 83,56,080/- rounded off to Rs. 83,057/-. The Assessee claimed refund of the said amount on the ground that the consumer M/s. K.P. T.C.L. refused to pay the amount and the same was borne by the Assessee. In support of such a contention the Assessee produced evidence to demonstrate that they had not passed on the excess duty burden to the consumer. The Commissioner of Appeals relying on the judgment of S. Kumar's case 2003 (153) E.L.T. 217 (Tri. - LB) rejected the said claim. Aggrieved by the said order the revenue has preferred this appeal. 2. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of the coordinate Bench in CC, Cochin vs. Rajesh Chemicals, 2006 (196) E.L.T. 64 (Tribunal, Bangalore), held that where the excess payment of duty was made due to arithmetical error it cannot be said to be considered as duty and the same is also not hit by the provisions of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal also relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of the appellate Tribunal in CCE, Bhopal vs. Tesla Transformers, 2001 (133) E.L.T. 484 (Tribunal-Delhi) Therefore it set aside the order of the authority and directed refund of the excess duty paid. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard the counsel for the revenue. 4. The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies when duty is recovered from a customer and later if it is found that such a duty was not livable, the assessee who has recovered it from the customer is not entitled to refund of the same. The underlining principle is that if the burden is already passed on to the customer the Assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund. The underlining principle is that if the burden is already passed on to the customer the Assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund. In the instant case, factually it is demonstrated that by an arithmetical mistake the excess duty was paid and a credit note was raised. The customer refused to pay the excess duty claimed pointing out that it is a clerical mistake. It is in that context, it was held that the burden of excess duty has not been passed on to the customer and it is paid from the pocket of the Assessee and hence the Assessee is entitled to refund of the same. That is the view which is taken by the Tribunal which is in accordance with law and therefore we do not find any error in the judgment of the Tribunal which calls for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.