Unjust enrichment in refund claims turns on whether duty incidence was passed on; invoice format alone is not decisive.

Refund was not barred by unjust enrichment because the pricing pattern showed clearance from the factory to the depot at a higher value and sale from the depot at a lower value, indicating that the duty burden had not been passed on to buyers. The absence of a separately shown excise duty component in the invoices was not decisive, as there was no statutory requirement that commercial invoices disclose a value break-up. Depot invoices predating factory clearance were also insufficient to establish unjust enrichment without a finding that factory gate invoices reflected a lower value than depot sale invoices. Refund was therefore admissible and credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment and liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The price structure showed that the goods were cleared from the factory to the depot at a higher value and were sold from the depot at a lower value, indicating that the incidence of duty was not passed on to the buyers. The absence of a separately shown excise duty element in the invoices was held not to be decisive, as there was no statutory requirement that commercial invoices must show a break-up of value. The fact that some depot invoices pre-dated the actual factory clearance was also found insufficient, in the absence of a finding that the factory gate invoices reflected a lower value than the depot sale invoices.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment and the assessee was entitled to refund, with the credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund set aside.

---