Unjust enrichment in refund claims failed where invoices and certificate showed no CVD was passed on to buyers.

Refund of CVD paid under protest was allowed because the duty incidence had not been passed on to buyers. Contemporaneous invoices showed no CVD recovery, and a chartered accountant's certificate supported non-recovery. Mere debit of the amount in the profit and loss account was insufficient by itself to prove unjust enrichment, and books of account were treated as immaterial where invoice evidence and supporting established that the burden remained with the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of CVD paid under protest, and whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The goods were assessed to CVD, but the duty had been paid under protest. The invoices showed that no CVD was recovered from the buyers, and the record included a chartered accountant's certificate supporting non-recovery of the duty incidence. The fact that the amount was debited in the profit and loss account was held to be insufficient, by itself, to establish that the burden had been passed on. Reliance was placed on the contemporaneous invoice entries and the supporting certificate, and the treatment in the books of account was held to be immaterial for deciding unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The appellants had not passed on the incidence of duty, the bar of unjust enrichment was not attracted, and they were entitled to refund of the CVD paid under protest.

---