Unjust enrichment barred the refund claim where duty was passed on through job charges to the buyer.

Refund of duty was denied because the claimant had passed the duty burden on to M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals along with job charges, engaging the bar of unjust enrichment. The argument that the principal buyer distributed physician samples free of cost, so unjust enrichment should not apply, was rejected. On the facts recorded, the Tribunal found that the incidence of duty had been recovered from another party, and the claimant therefore failed to discharge the burden of showing entitlement to refund. The refund claim was accordingly treated as inadmissible under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund claimant had paid the duty and sought its refund, but the duty amount was found to have been collected from M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals along with the job charges. The contention that the principal buyer distributed physician samples free of cost and therefore the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply was rejected. The Tribunal held that the burden of duty had been passed on and that the refund claimant was required to clear the bar of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be hit by unjust enrichment and was not admissible.

---