Unjust enrichment bar on refund fails when audited records and supporting certificates show the duty was not passed on.

Refund claims are not barred by unjust enrichment where audited balance sheet and profit and loss records, ledger entries showing the amount as receivable, a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and an affidavit establish that the duty incidence on captive-consumed goods was not passed on to buyers. In the absence of contrary evidence from the Revenue, such documentary proof is sufficient to rebut the presumption that the duty burden was indirectly included in the value of the goods, and the refund remains admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment and whether the appellant had established that the duty incidence on captive-consumed jars had not been passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The refund controversy was confined to the limited question of unjust enrichment. The appellant produced audited balance sheet and profit and loss account, ledger entries showing the refund amount as receivable, a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and an affidavit from the authorised signatory. These materials supported the stand that the amount had not been charged to profit and loss account and that the duty burden had not been recovered from customers. The Revenue did not controvert this evidence with contrary material. The finding of the lower appellate authority that the amount must have been indirectly loaded into the value of the goods was not accepted.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment, and the appellant was held entitled to refund.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the claimant substantiates through audited accounts and supporting certification that the duty amount was shown as receivable and not passed on, the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply.

---