Refund claims require proof that duty incidence was not passed on; timely filing alone does not defeat unjust enrichment.

Refund was held to be within limitation because the one-year period was computed from the date of the Appellate Tribunal's order and the claim was filed within that period. The limitation objection was rejected. Refund nevertheless failed on unjust enrichment because the claimant did not produce acceptable documentary and accounting evidence to show that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, including proof that the amount was shown as receivable in the books. The refund was barred on that ground, and the claim failed despite being timely.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the refund claim was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The refund application was held to be within time because the relevant period of one year was computed from the date of the Appellate Tribunal's order, and the claim had been filed within that period.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to establish, by acceptable documentary evidence and accounting treatment, that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to any other person. The absence of proof that the amount was shown as receivable in the books supported the conclusion that the burden had been passed on.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because, although the claim was treated as timely, the appellant did not satisfy the requirements for refund on the issue of unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claimant must affirmatively prove that the incidence of duty has not been passed on, and failure to establish this bars refund notwithstanding the claim being within limitation.

---