Unjust enrichment does not bar refund where oil industry cess was paid provisionally before final quantity was settled.

Refund of Oil Industry Development cess paid on excess crude oil quantity was not hit by unjust enrichment because the cess liability depended on the final quantity received after adjustment for basic sediments, water, and settlement between the parties. The contractual arrangement placed the cess burden on the supplier, and the payment made before finalisation was effectively provisional. As there was no material showing that the assessee had passed the burden on to customers, the refund claim was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Oil Industry Development cess paid on excess quantity of crude oil was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The cess under the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 was payable with reference to the quantity received in the refinery, after determination of the correct quantity of crude oil and the applicable discount for basic sediments and water. The quantity initially adopted was revised by mutual settlement, which reduced the quantity received and showed excess cess payment. The contractual arrangement placed the cess burden on the supplier, not the receiver, and the amount payable could be finalized only after the actual quantity received was settled between the parties. On these facts, the payment made before finalization was effectively provisional, and there was no material to show that the respondent had passed on the cess burden to the customer.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund claim was maintainable in favour of the assessee.

---