Unjust enrichment bars refund where invoices show duty passed on and evidence does not prove the assessee bore the burden.

Refund arising from a classification dispute remained subject to the bar of unjust enrichment, and the assessee had to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. Separate disclosure of duty in invoices supported the inference of pass-through, while mere stability of sale price did not establish that the assessee bore the burden itself. In the absence of evidence showing profit margins before and after duty payment, the material relied on did not rebut unjust enrichment. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment on the ground that the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers.

Analysis: The refund arose after the classification dispute was finally decided in favour of the assessee, but the assessee still had to establish that the duty burden had not been shifted to customers. The invoices separately showed the duty element, and mere stability of sale price did not establish that the assessee had borne the duty itself. The record did not show the profit margin before and after payment of duty, and the material relied upon did not rebut the inference that the duty incidence had been passed on. The legal position required the assessee to cross the bar of unjust enrichment before obtaining refund.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly held to be hit by unjust enrichment and was not maintainable.

---