Revised balance sheet evidence can defeat unjust enrichment in Special Additional Duty refund claims where duty incidence was not passed on.

For refund claims of Special Additional Duty, unjust enrichment does not apply where the revised balance sheet, filed with the income tax authorities, shows the refund as receivable and supports the conclusion that the duty burden was borne by the claimant. The Tribunal treated such revised accounts as valid evidence that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, particularly where an earlier coordinate decision on identical facts had already accepted the same material. On that basis, the refund was held admissible and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of Special Additional Duty was barred by unjust enrichment, and whether the revised balance sheet filed with the income tax authorities could be accepted as evidence that the incidence of duty had not been passed on.

Analysis: The refund claim had been rejected only on the ground of unjust enrichment because the original balance sheet did not reflect the refund receivable. The Tribunal noted that in the appellant's own earlier case on identical facts, the revised balance sheet had been accepted as relevant evidence, including the fact that it was revised and filed with the income tax authorities and additional income tax had been paid on that basis. On that footing, the revised accounts showed the refund amount as receivable and supported the conclusion that the duty burden had been borne by the appellant. Following the earlier decision in the appellant's own case and applying judicial discipline, the Tribunal saw no reason to take a different view.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was not attracted, and the refund was admissible.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was granted refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of unjust enrichment in a refund claim, a duly revised balance sheet filed with the income tax authorities can constitute valid evidence that the incidence of duty was not passed on, especially where an earlier coordinate decision on identical facts has already accepted that evidence.

---