Unjust enrichment does not bar customs duty refund where evidence shows the duty burden was not passed on.

Refund of customs duty paid under protest after denial of exemption Notification No. 66/94-Cus was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment. The appellate authority found that the fertilizer subsidy regime was separate from the customs duty exemption, and the record did not show that the duty incidence had been passed on. A Chartered Engineer's certificate also supported the claim that the burden was not transferred. The refund was therefore not required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund and was sustained in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of customs duty paid under protest after denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 66/94-Cus was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The imported goods were covered by the exemption notification and the differential duty had been paid only because the customs authorities had denied the benefit. The first appellate authority found that the subsidy regime for fertilizers was independent of the customs duty exemption and that no evidence was produced to show that the duty incidence had been passed on. The record also showed that a Chartered Engineer's certificate supported the claim that the duty burden had not been transferred. In these circumstances, the plea that the refund should be denied and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund was not accepted.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and the order allowing refund was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---