Unjust enrichment in refund claims fails where the assessee proves duty incidence was not passed on to buyers.

An assessee seeking refund defeated the objection of unjust enrichment by showing that the final product price remained constant and that the duty element on captively used inputs had not been passed on to buyers. The material on record supported the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that the incidence of duty was not shifted to consumers, and the Revenue's cited authority was distinguished because the assessee had been given and had used the to discharge the burden. The unjust enrichment objection therefore did not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proving that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the consumers, so as to defeat the objection of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The assessee established that the price of the final products remained constant and that the duty burden on the inputs used captively had not been shifted to the purchasers of the final goods. The finding recorded before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the burden had not been passed on was supported by the material on record and by the authorities relied upon. The decision cited by the Revenue was distinguished because the assessee had, in the present matter, been afforded and had availed the opportunity to discharge the burden.

Conclusion: The objection of unjust enrichment did not survive and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

---