Unjust enrichment does not bar refund when imported inputs are processed for export and the final sale price stays unchanged.

Refund of duty on imported raw materials used for further processing and export cannot be denied merely on the ground of unjust enrichment where the incidence of duty is not shown to have been passed on to buyers. The Tribunal relied on the unchanged sale price of the final product as evidence that the duty burden had not been transferred, and treated that factual position as sufficient to exclude the unjust enrichment bar. On that basis, consequential refund was held admissible and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the consequential refund could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment when the imported raw materials were used in processing goods for export.

Analysis: The refund had been denied solely on the basis of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's case that the goods were imported for further processing and export under the EXIM policy, and relied on earlier Tribunal decisions holding that where there is no change in the sale price of the final product, the duty incidence cannot be said to have been passed on to buyers.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable on the facts, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty incidence is not passed on and the final sale price remains unchanged, a refund cannot be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

---