Unjust enrichment in refund claims is not attracted where chartered accountant evidence is corroborated by financial records.

A refund claim following entitlement to Notification No. 26/95 was examined on the narrow issue of unjust enrichment. The claimant supported the refund with a chartered accountant's certificate, balance-sheet entries and other financial records showing that the duty element had not been passed on to customers. That corroborative evidence was held sufficient to discharge the burden of proof, and it could not be rejected merely because the certificate alone was considered inadequate. The refund was therefore not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment and whether the evidence produced, including the chartered accountant's certificate and supporting financial documents, was sufficient to establish that the duty incidence had not been passed on.

Analysis: The refund arose after the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 26/95 dated 16-3-1995. The dispute was confined to the bar of unjust enrichment. The record contained the chartered accountant's certificate along with balance-sheet and other relevant documents showing that the duty element had not been passed on to customers. In such circumstances, the evidence could not be rejected merely because the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the certificate alone insufficient. The material on record satisfied the burden of proving that the refund was not hit by unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the refund claimant produces a chartered accountant's certificate together with corroborative financial records showing that the duty burden was not passed on, the statutory bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted.

---