Unjust enrichment does not bar refund when duty burden was not passed on to buyers and evidence supports recovery.

Refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the evidence, including invoices, showed that the duty incidence was not recovered from buyers and no additional consideration was received towards duty. The earlier view that refund was otherwise admissible remained undisturbed, so the rejection was found unsustainable. The assessee was therefore held entitled to refund, and consequential relief was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment and whether the appellant had established that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The matter had been remanded earlier only for a fresh determination on unjust enrichment. On the evidence, including the invoice, the amount of duty was shown as not recovered from the buyers and no additional consideration was received towards duty. The earlier view that refund was otherwise admissible also remained unshaken, and the impugned rejection was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was held to be not attracted, and the appellant was held entitled to refund.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim succeeded and the department was directed to sanction the refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee proves that the duty incidence has not been passed on to buyers, refund cannot be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

---