Unjust enrichment test failed where duty incidence stayed with the assessee and refund of excess duty was allowed.

Refund of excess duty paid after reclassification was held not barred by unjust enrichment where the evidence showed that the selling price was not increased and the excise duty continued to be borne by the assessee. Correspondence and price declarations indicated that the duty incidence had not been passed on to buyers, and that refund would be sought if the classification dispute was resolved in the assessee's favour. On those facts, the factual foundation for applying the unjust enrichment bar was absent, and the refund claim succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess duty paid pursuant to reclassification was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the duty burden had been passed on to buyers.

Analysis: The appellant's correspondence and price declarations showed that, after the duty was paid, the selling price of the goods was not increased and the excise duty was being borne by the appellant itself. The materials on record also recorded that the prices were being maintained and that refund would be claimed if the classification issue was ultimately decided in the appellant's favour. On these facts, the disputed duty was not passed on to buyers. Since unjust enrichment applies only where the incidence of duty has been transferred to the purchaser, the factual basis for invoking the bar was absent.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment and was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---