Unjust enrichment did not bar refund of duty paid twice by mistake, as no passing on to buyers was shown.

Refund of duty paid twice by mistake on the same yarn was not barred by unjust enrichment where there was no evidence that the assessee had recovered the duty twice from customers. As the goods were sold at the same rate throughout the relevant period and the excess payment was a one-time inadvertent error, the burden was not shown to have been passed on. The refund claim was therefore maintainable, and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid twice inadvertently on the same yarn was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The duty had been paid twice by mistake in respect of the same yarn, and there was no material to show that the assessee had collected duty twice from its customers. The goods were sold throughout the relevant period at the same rate, and the mistaken excess payment was treated as a one-time error rather than a case of passing on the burden to buyers. In such circumstances, the bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable to the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund was not barred by unjust enrichment and the appeal succeeded.

---