Unjust enrichment cannot defeat excise refund granted under an appellate determination; recovery back was rejected.

Refund of excise duty implemented under an appellate determination cannot be denied or recovered back on the basis of unjust enrichment when the refund flows from relief already adjudged as due. The Court treated the earlier appellate order as binding and rejected the contention that passing on the duty to customers defeated the refund claim. It also noted that reliance on the earlier Roplas decision was misplaced because it was no longer good law. The refund rejection and recovery notice were set aside, and refund with consequential interest was directed if payment was delayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty granted pursuant to an appellate determination could be denied, or the refunded amount recovered back, on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from a prior appellate decision holding the duty recovery to be without authority of law. The refusal to grant refund and the attempt to recover the amount already paid were founded solely on the premise that the duty had been passed on to customers. The Court held that, where refund is sought in implementation of an appellate order, the doctrine of unjust enrichment cannot be invoked to defeat the relief. Reliance on the earlier Roplas decision was held to be misplaced as it was no longer good law.

Conclusion: The objection based on unjust enrichment was rejected, and the refund could not be denied or recovered back on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refund rejection and recovery notice were set aside, and the petitioners were held entitled to refund with consequential interest if payment was delayed.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund granted in obedience to an appellate determination cannot be defeated by invoking unjust enrichment to deny the benefit or to recover the amount already refunded.

---