Unjust enrichment governs refund of pre-deposit amounts, which must be tested for passing on of duty burden before recovery.

Refund of amounts paid as a pre-deposit remains subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and the claim must be examined to determine whether the duty burden was passed on to customers. Supreme Court authorities cited in the text confirm that such refunds are not automatically recoverable merely because the payment was made under a court order. A contrary Tribunal view was not followed to the extent it ignored those binding decisions. The operative effect is that refund entitlement depends on factual verification of incidence of duty, not on the pre-deposit label alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of amounts paid by way of pre-deposit is subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refund claims even where the amount was paid as a pre-deposit pursuant to a court order. The Supreme Court authorities relied upon established that such refund claims must be examined to ascertain whether the duty burden had been passed on to customers. A contrary Tribunal view, to the extent it overlooked those binding decisions, was not followed. Since the refund claim had to be tested on the touchstone of unjust enrichment, the matter required factual examination as to passing on of duty incidence.

Conclusion: The refund claim is subject to the bar of unjust enrichment and requires fresh examination on the question of passing on the duty burden.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of pre-deposit is not automatically the doctrine of unjust enrichment and must be tested on whether the incidence of duty was passed on.

---