Unjust enrichment does not bar refund of a court-directed pre-deposit when evidence shows the amount was not passed on.

A pre-deposit made under a Tribunal stay direction for hearing an appeal was held refundable because the assessee showed, through an uncontroverted Chartered Accountant's certificate, that the amount was not debited to the Profit and Loss Account or passed on as expenditure. On that factual basis, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the Revenue could not retain the deposit on a mere possibility of later cost absorption. The impugned order was set aside and the refund claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of the amount deposited during pendency of the appeal was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The amount had been deposited pursuant to the Tribunal's stay direction for hearing of the appeal, and the appellant produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing that the amount was not debited to the Profit and Loss Account as expenditure. That certificate was neither disputed nor controverted by the department. In these circumstances, the doctrine of unjust enrichment had no application, and the Revenue could not withhold the amount merely on a speculative possibility of later expenditure.

Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and was admissible to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund claim was upheld, resulting in relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit made under judicial direction for prosecuting an appeal is refundable and is not barred by unjust enrichment where the assessee substantiates that the amount was not passed on or charged to revenue expenditure and the department does not rebut that evidence.

---