Unjust enrichment does not bar excise refund where evidence shows the duty burden was not passed to customers.

Refund claims are not barred by unjust enrichment where excise duty is paid after clearance and the record shows that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers. Here, the goods were initially cleared without duty, the price list showed excise duty as nil, and invoices matched the approved price list. Duty was paid later under protest after an incorrect classification was identified, and supporting material such as an affidavit, chartered accountant's certificate, and customer letters indicated that the burden remained with the appellant. On those facts, the refund was treated as allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment on the ground that the duty incidence had been passed on to customers.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared initially without duty, the price list showed excise duty as nil, and the invoices reflected the approved price list. The duty was paid under protest much later, after the original classification was found to be incorrect. The appellant also produced an affidavit, a chartered accountant's certificate, and letters from customers to show that the duty burden had not been passed on. On these facts, the principle applied in the cited precedent supported the claim that incidence of duty had not been transferred to buyers.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and was allowable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid after clearance and the evidence shows that the duty burden was not passed on to customers, the refund is not barred by unjust enrichment.

---