Judgment V.M. Sahai, J. 1. We have heard learned advocate Ms. Nayna Gadhvi for the appellant. Though rule, has been served, no one appears for the respondent. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law. "Whether or not, the refund of Central Excise duty is admissible under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if the same is invoiced and collected and thereby passed on to the purchasers and sought to be claimed on the basis of the credit notes issued to the buyers after clearance of the goods thereby post-transaction credit notes?" 2. Learned Counsel for the revenue has urged that since the assessee has collected Central Excise duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and Excise duty was passed on to the purchasers, such amount cannot be refunded to the assessee as it amounts to unjust enrichment to the assessee. In support of her contention, reliance has been placed on the Constitutional Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Others v. Union of India & Others reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536 : 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 wherein it has been held that Excise duty paid by the Industry or assessee and it has been passed on to the consumers or the purchasers of the goods, then the assessee is not entitled to claim any refund of the amount from the Central Excise Department, as such a claim would amount to unjust enrichment. This decision has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in (2005) 3 SCC 738 : 2005 (181) E.L.T. 328 . In this view of the matter, we are of the, considered opinion that the view taken by CESTAT in directing refund of the amount to the assessee is illegal and deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. We answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In Favour of Department.