Unjust enrichment did not bar customs refund where evidence showed duty incidence was not passed on to buyers.

Documentary evidence including the balance-sheet, chartered accountant's certificate, and unchanged sale prices showed that the excess customs duty was treated as recoverable from Customs and not passed on to buyers. As the Revenue produced no material to rebut this factual position, the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not established on these facts. The customs refund could therefore not be denied on that ground, and the refund in favour of the assessee was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to the customs refund claimed by the assessee and whether the burden of duty had been passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The documentary material, including the balance-sheet, chartered accountant's certificate, and unchanged sale prices, supported the finding that the excess duty was shown as recoverable from Customs and not recovered from customers. The Revenue did not produce material to rebut these findings. In these circumstances, the factual basis for applying unjust enrichment was not established.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The refund order in favour of the assessee was sustained and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows that the incidence of duty has not been passed on, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar refund.

---