Unjust enrichment in refund claims failed where sale below import price and accountant evidence showed no duty burden passed on.

The refund dispute turned on unjust enrichment. The importer showed, through a Chartered Accountant's certificate and a comparative sale-price table, that bunker oil was sold below the import price on which duty had been paid, indicating that the duty incidence had not been passed on. Mere debit of the duty in the accounts was insufficient to sustain the statutory presumption once this material was produced. The burden then shifted to the department to rebut the evidence with tangible proof, which it failed to do. The refund was therefore admissible and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by unjust enrichment despite the importer producing a Chartered Accountant's certificate and evidence that the bunker oil was sold below the import price.

Analysis: The refund dispute turned only on unjust enrichment. The importer produced a comparative table showing that the sale price of the bunkers was below the assessable/import price on which duty had been paid, indicating that even the cost of the goods had not been recovered, much less the duty element. A Chartered Accountant's certificate stated that the customs duty incidence had not been passed on to any other person. In these circumstances, the presumption that the duty burden was transferred could not be sustained merely because the duty had been debited in the accounts. Once such material was on record, the burden shifted to the department to rebut it with tangible evidence, which it failed to do.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund was admissible in favour of the assessee.

---