Unjust enrichment bars refund of input duty where the claimant cannot prove the duty was not passed on.

Refund of duty paid on inputs was rejected because the claimant did not prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. Reliance on the exempt nature of the finished goods, accounting treatment under administrative overheads, and a chartered accountant's certificate was insufficient, as the certificate was not produced before the lower appellate authority and did not clearly show that the duty element was excluded from the costing of the finished goods. The burden to establish absence of unjust enrichment was not discharged, so the refund claim failed and the orders below were maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of duty paid on an input was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The appellants sought refund on the basis that the duty had not been passed on, relying on the exempt nature of the finished goods, accounting treatment under administrative overheads, and a chartered accountant's certificate. The certificate was not produced before the lower appellate authority and did not categorically establish that the duty element was excluded from the costing of the finished goods. The burden to prove absence of duty incidence on customers was not discharged.

Conclusion: The refund claim failed on the ground of unjust enrichment and no interference with the orders below was warranted.

---