Unjust Enrichment in refund claims requires documentary proof that duty incidence was not passed on to customers.

A refund claim was rejected because the claimant failed to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. Even though the goods were manufactured on behalf of another entity and duty had been paid in that context, the bar of unjust enrichment still applied unless supported by documentary evidence showing that the incidence of duty remained with the claimant. Mere affidavits were held insufficient to discharge that burden, and cited precedents were treated as fact-specific or based on remand with evidence. The refund claim therefore failed for lack of proof against unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment and whether the appellants had proved that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers.

Analysis: The appellants manufactured the goods on behalf of another entity and the duty had been paid in that context, but the claim for refund still required proof that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. Mere affidavits were found insufficient for discharging that burden. The material on record did not show by documentary evidence that the duty incidence remained with the appellants and was not transferred to customers. The cited decisions did not assist because they were decided on their own facts or involved remand on the basis of evidence produced there.

Conclusion: The refund claim failed for want of proof against unjust enrichment and the issue was decided against the assessee.

---