Unjust enrichment in refund claims requires evidence; uniform pricing alone does not prove duty was not passed on.

Refund claims are subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and a uniform sale price before and after assessment is not, by itself, enough to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. The decisive test remains evidence of whether the assessee recovered the duty element from customers. Amounts deposited during investigation may also fall outside unjust enrichment if they are traceable to prior proceedings, but that character must be verified on the record. Because the factual position was unclear, the matter was remanded for de novo examination by the original authority, which was directed to re-examine unjust enrichment and the nature of the deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment on the ground that the sale price remained uniform before and after assessment, and whether the amount deposited during investigation could be excluded from the bar of unjust enrichment if it related to prior proceedings.

Analysis: The price remaining uniform by itself was held to be insufficient to conclude that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to buyers. The controlling principle applied was that unjust enrichment must be tested on evidence, and the assessee could still establish that the duty element was not recovered from customers. The order also recognised that amounts deposited during investigation, if referable to prior proceedings, may stand on a different footing and may not attract the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Since the record was unclear on this aspect, the matter required fresh examination by the original authority.

Conclusion: The refund issue was not finally decided on merits. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration, with the original authority directed to examine unjust enrichment and the character of the deposit afresh.

---