Unjust enrichment and cum-duty sales: statutory invoice disclosure alone does not bar refund where duty was not recovered from buyers

In refund claims involving goods sold on a cum-duty basis, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is stated to be inapplicable where duty is separately shown in invoices only to satisfy excise-rule requirements. The note follows the jurisdictional High Court's view that a statutory invoice disclosure does not, by itself, show recovery of duty from customers. On that basis, the mere mention of duty in the invoice does not bar refund of Additional Excise Duty, and the refund cannot be denied on unjust enrichment grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar of unjust enrichment applies where goods are sold on cum-duty basis and the duty amount is shown in the invoices only because of the statutory requirement under the excise rules.

Analysis: The refund arose from a dispute on liability to Additional Excise Duty. The appellant sold goods at a price inclusive of all duties and separately reflected the duty in the invoices as required by the excise rules. The Court applied the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that a statutory invoice declaration does not amount to recovery of duty from customers, and therefore the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted merely because the duty is mentioned in the invoice.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable, and the refund could not be denied on that ground.

---