Unjust enrichment bars EOU refund claims where duty incidence was not shown to remain with the assessee.

Refund claims arising from clearances by a 100% EOU are barred if the duty burden was ultimately passed on, and the absence of a sale between sister units does not by itself defeat unjust enrichment. In inter-unit transfer cases, the relevant enquiry is whether the recipient unit or the final product manufacturer recovered the duty in later sales; here, no evidence showed that the incidence was not passed on to ultimate customers. A separate claim that duty was paid later and not recovered was also unsupported by material evidence. The refund claims therefore failed the test of unjust enrichment and were not admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims arising from clearances by a 100% EOU were barred by unjust enrichment, including in cases of inter-unit transfer.

Analysis: The determining factor for refund is whether the duty burden was ultimately passed on. In inter-unit transfers, the absence of a sale between the two units does not by itself exclude unjust enrichment; the relevant enquiry is whether the recipient unit or the final product manufacturer passed on the duty burden in subsequent sales. On the record, no evidence was produced to show that the duty incidence was not recovered from ultimate customers. In the second matter also, the claim that duty was paid later and not passed on was unsupported by material evidence.

Conclusion: The refund claims failed the test of unjust enrichment and were not admissible.

---