Unjust enrichment bars cash refund where the claimant fails to prove duty burden was not passed on to customers.

A refund claim for excess customs duty was denied in cash because the claimant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment. Mere assertions that the duty element was reflected in purchase accounts and that profits were reduced were held insufficient. In the absence of cogent evidence showing that the burden had not been passed on to customers and that the final product price remained unaffected, the bar on cash refund applied. The amount was therefore correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and the challenge to the refund order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of customs duty was liable to be paid to the appellant in cash or was correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from excess payment of special additional duty, but the appellant was required to rebut the statutory presumption that the duty burden had been passed on to customers. Mere assertions that the duty component was booked in purchase accounts and reduced profit were insufficient. No tangible evidence was produced to show that the cost of the final product remained unaffected and that the burden had not been passed on to the ultimate consumers. In the absence of such proof, the bar against cash refund operated and credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was justified.

Conclusion: The refund was not payable to the appellant in cash and the direction to credit the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund was and valid. The issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refund order failed, and the dismissal of the appeal followed from the appellant's failure to rebut unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant for refund must rebut the statutory presumption of passing on the duty burden with cogent evidence; failing that, refund is to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---