Interest on delayed refund upheld where unjust enrichment was rebutted and refund retention was found unsustainable.

Interest on delayed refund was payable where the refund had been retained despite later evidence showing that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The earlier transfer of the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund on unjust enrichment grounds did not justify denial of interest once the matter was remanded and the appellant established entitlement to the refund. Following the earlier Tribunal view on the same refund period, the demand to recover the interest was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the delayed refund amount for the period during which the refund was retained and ultimately paid.

Analysis: The refund had initially been transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the basis of unjust enrichment, but the legal position at the relevant time treated captively consumed goods differently. The matter was later remanded and the appellant produced evidence to establish that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. In these circumstances, and following the earlier Tribunal decision allowing interest on the same refund period, there was no basis to deny interest on the delayed refund.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to interest on the delayed refund, and the demand confirming recovery of the interest could not be sustained.

---