Unjust enrichment in refund claims turns on whether excess duty was passed on when goods were sold at fixed MRP.

Refund of excess CVD was examined on the question of unjust enrichment where the imported goods were sold on an MRP basis and the duty difference was shown as receivable in the accounts. The record, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate, supported the view that the incidence of the excess duty had not been passed on to buyers because the sale price did not vary with the differential duty. The Revenue's general presumption that duty forms part of cost was distinguished on the facts, and the contrary precedent was held inapplicable. The refund was therefore not barred by unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's refund claim of excess CVD was barred by unjust enrichment where the imported goods were sold on MRP basis and the excess duty was reflected as receivable in the books of account.

Analysis: The refund dispute turned on whether the incidence of excess duty had been passed on to buyers. The goods were sold at a constant MRP, the excess duty was shown as receivable in the accounts, and a Chartered Accountant's certificate was produced. The Revenue's reliance on the general presumption in cases of duty forming part of the cost was distinguished because, in an MRP-based regime, the price did not fluctuate with the differential duty and the record supported that the burden remained with the respondent. The contrary precedent relied upon by the Revenue was found inapplicable on its facts.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment was not attracted, and the respondent was entitled to refund.

---