Consequential refund and unjust enrichment: refund upheld, but amount credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund for failure of proof.

A consequential refund arising from an earlier order allowing the benefit of Notification No. 38/78-Cus, where duty had been paid under protest, was not denied merely because it followed the prior adjudication. The decisive issue remained unjust enrichment: the claimant had to prove that the duty incidence had not been passed on. As that burden was not discharged, the refund was required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and the challenge to the refund order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund arising from the earlier appellate order was liable to be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment and, if not, whether the amount was correctly directed to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The refund claim arose as a consequential relief following the earlier order allowing the benefit of Notification No. 38/78-Cus, and the differential duty had been paid under protest. In these circumstances, the refund was not liable to be rejected merely because it was consequential to the earlier adjudication. However, the burden was on the appellant to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, and that burden was not discharged. The direction to credit the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund was therefore sustained.

Conclusion: The appeal failed. The refund sanction was upheld, and the direction to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the refund order was rejected, and the impugned decision stood affirmed in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: A consequential refund paid under protest may be sanctioned, but if the claimant fails to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on, the refund is required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the principle of unjust enrichment.

---