Unjust enrichment bars refund where the claimant cannot prove duty incidence was not passed on to buyers.

A refund claimant must prove that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers; otherwise, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies and the refund is to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under the statutory scheme. Where the amount was debited towards duty liability rather than treated as a pre-deposit, and no specific documentary evidence showed non-passing of the duty incidence, refund is barred. On these facts, the refund was correctly denied and the appellate order was upheld.

---

---

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

Analysis: The amount was found to have been debited towards duty liability and not as a pre-deposit. The appellant did not produce specific documentary evidence to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the buyers. In the absence of proof of non-passing of duty burden, the statutory scheme governing refund required credit of the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The principle of unjust enrichment was held applicable to deny refund where the claimant cannot show that it would bear the loss and has not passed on the burden.

Conclusion: The refund was correctly denied to the appellant on the ground of unjust enrichment and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the refund was not payable to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claimant must prove that the duty burden has not been passed on to others; otherwise, the doctrine of unjust enrichment bars refund and the amount is liable to be credited as per the statutory refund scheme.

---