Refund claim and unjust enrichment: absence of passed-on duty burden made the refund admissible despite missing original documents

Refund of the balance duty after remand was treated as admissible because the duty burden had not been shown to pass to any other person, and the machinery was used by the appellant for its own purposes. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was therefore inapplicable on the admitted facts. Non-production of the original documents required under the refund form regulations was treated only as a verification issue and not as an independent ground to reject an otherwise maintainable refund claim. The rejection of the refund was accordingly set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of the balance duty amount was barred by unjust enrichment and whether non-production of original documents could justify rejection of the refund claim.

Analysis: The refund claim arose after the duty liability was reduced on remand and the earlier deposit was adjusted against the confirmed duty, fine and penalty. There was no finding that the duty burden had been passed on to any other person, and the machinery had been used by the appellant for its own use. The requirement of original documents under the refund form regulations was treated as a matter of verification, not as a ground to defeat an otherwise admissible refund. On the admitted facts, the doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The refund was held to be admissible and the rejection of the claim was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---