Unjust enrichment does not bar refund where excess duty arose from provisional pricing and later contract price revision.

Refund of excess duty paid on supplies made under a provisional contract price was held not to be hit by unjust enrichment where the contract expressly contemplated price variation and the final contract price was fixed at a lower rate. The excess duty represented only the difference between the provisional and final price, and earlier Tribunal rulings on identical facts treated such excess as not having been passed on to buyers when the contractual adjustment was later made. As a result, refund was allowed and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excess duty paid on supplies made at a provisional contract price, after finalisation of the contract price at a lower rate, was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The goods were supplied under a contract that contemplated provisional pricing, and the contract price was subsequently finalised at a lower rate. The excess duty corresponded to the differential between the provisional and final contract price. On identical facts, earlier Tribunal decisions had held that where the contractual arrangement itself provided for price variation and the excess amount was adjusted or paid back, the incidence of duty could not be said to have been passed on so as to attract unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: Refund of the excess duty was not barred by unjust enrichment, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---