Unjust enrichment in refund claims: adjustment of price differential against buyer dues did not bar refund.

Refund on provisional pricing was examined under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Goods were supplied to a public sector buyer at a provisional price, the final price was settled lower, and the buyer adjusted the differential from outstanding dues. The lower appellate authority accepted that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and the Tribunal followed an earlier similar decision to hold that adjustment through the buyer's dues did not attract the bar of unjust enrichment. The refund was therefore not required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and was allowed to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment and was therefore liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The goods were supplied on a provisional price basis to a public sector buyer, and the price was later settled at a lower rate. The buyer adjusted the differential amount from the outstanding dues, and the lower appellate authority accepted that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the buyers. The Tribunal found the case identical to an earlier decision where refund was allowed in similar circumstances, and held that the adjustment through the buyer's outstanding payments did not attract the bar of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and was rightly allowed in favour of the assessee.

---