Refund of duty paid during investigation succeeds where demand is unsustainable and burden passed-on is not shown.

Duty deposited during investigation against a disputed demand was held refundable where the earlier Tribunal finding that the duty demand was not sustainable had attained finality, and the refund application was filed within 90 days of that decision. The claim was also not defeated by unjust enrichment because the payment was made through PLA and there was no showing that the burden had been passed on to buyers through the sale price. The refund was therefore allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the refund was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The amount in dispute had been paid during investigation and the earlier order of the Tribunal had held that the duty demand was not sustainable. The refund claim was filed within 90 days from the Tribunal's decision, and the earlier finding on non-liability had attained finality.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The payment was made through PLA during investigation against a disputed demand, and the amount was not shown to have been recovered from buyers as part of the sale price. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was therefore held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The refund was not barred by unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund claim was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty amount deposited during investigation pursuant to a disputed demand, which is later held not payable, is refundable and does not attract unjust enrichment where the burden is not shown to have been passed on.

---