Unjust enrichment in refund claims fails where product pricing is independent of duty incidence and past findings remain unchanged.

Refund was not barred by unjust enrichment because the final product prices were fixed by London Metal Exchange rates, independent of the assessee's control and unrelated to the cost of imported raw material or customs duty. The same factual position had already been accepted in the assessee's earlier case, where incidence of duty was held not to have been passed on, and no change in facts or law was shown. The First Appellate Authority's direction allowing refund was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment and whether the First Appellate Authority was justified in directing refund to the claimant.

Analysis: The prices of the final products were determined on the basis of London Metal Exchange prices, which were not under the assessee's control and had no relation to the cost of the imported raw material or the customs duty paid. The same factual position had already been accepted in the assessee's own earlier case, where it was held that the incidence of duty was not passed on. No change in facts or law was shown to displace that conclusion.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment, and the First Appellate Authority's order allowing refund was sustained.

---