Unjust enrichment cannot bar customs refund on mere speculation where evidence shows no duty burden was passed on.

Refund of customs duty-related amounts could not be denied on a speculative assumption that the importer might later take CENVAT credit or otherwise pass on the duty burden. The Chartered Accountant's certificate and the assessee's statement showed that the incidence of duty had not been passed on and that no CENVAT credit had in fact been taken. In these circumstances, the objection of unjust enrichment was not supported by a concluded factual finding, and a mere apprehension about possible future credit was insufficient. The rejection of refund was therefore unsustainable, and the refund was payable with applicable interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of customs duty-related amounts could be denied on the ground that the importer may avail CENVAT credit or otherwise pass on the incidence of duty, despite documentary material indicating that the burden had not been passed on.

Analysis: The authority had accepted the Chartered Accountant certificate showing that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, but still denied refund on the speculative basis that credit might be taken later in the returns. Such a denial was inconsistent and rested on a mere apprehension rather than a concluded finding on unjust enrichment. Once the certificate and the appellant's statement showed that no CENVAT credit had in fact been taken, the refund could not be refused on a hypothetical possibility.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund was not sustainable, and the refund was held payable to the assessee along with applicable interest.

---