Unjust enrichment in Special Additional Duty refunds fails when accounts alone do not prove the duty was passed to buyers.

Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was not barred by unjust enrichment where the evidence showed that the duty incidence had not been passed on to buyers. The tribunal relied on audited accounts, a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and the absence of any receipt or cash flow from customers. Mere debit of the duty to the profit and loss account was held insufficient, by itself, to prove transfer of the burden to customers. The refund was therefore admissible in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the duty had been debited to the profit and loss account and therefore treated as passed on to customers.

Analysis: The refund was claimed under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The deciding factor was whether the evidence showed that the incidence of the duty had been passed on. The audited accounts, Chartered Accountant's certificate, and the absence of any receipt or cash flow from buyers were taken into account. Mere booking of the duty as expenditure in the accounts did not, by itself, establish passing on of the burden so as to attract unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and was held admissible in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund of Special Additional Duty, debit of the duty in accounts alone does not establish unjust enrichment when the evidence shows that the incidence has not been passed on to buyers.

---