Unjust enrichment did not bar cash refund where duty was not passed on in exclusive defence supplies.

Refund otherwise admissible on merits was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where a Government of India undertaking supplied vehicles exclusively for defence use and the duty incidence could not be said to have been passed on to any buyer or agency. On those facts, the doctrine of unjust enrichment was inapplicable, and the denial of cash refund was unsustainable. The refund was therefore payable in cash.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty, otherwise admissible on merits, was barred by unjust enrichment and consequently not payable in cash.

Analysis: The refund claims were accepted as admissible on merits, but the lower authority had denied cash refund on the ground that the incidence of duty had not been shown to have remained with the appellant. The appellant was a Government of India undertaking supplying vehicles exclusively for defence use, and the duty element could not be said to have been passed on to any other buyer or agency. In such circumstances, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply.

Conclusion: The refund was payable in cash and the denial based on unjust enrichment was unsustainable.

---