Retrospective Section 11B and unjust enrichment required remand for fresh refund scrutiny and evidence on duty passing.

The amended Section 11B was treated as retrospectively operative and applicable to pending refund matters, including under Section 11B(3) as amended, so refund eligibility had to be examined in light of the updated law. The objection of unjust enrichment therefore remained relevant, and refund could not be granted without considering whether the duty burden had been passed on. However, because the appellants said that this objection had not been specifically raised and sought an opportunity to prove otherwise, the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration and evidence on passing on of duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims were governed by the amended, retrospectively operative provisions of Section 11B and whether the claim could be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment, with the matter requiring remand for fresh consideration and evidence on passing on of duty.

Analysis: The amended Section 11B was treated as retrospectively operative, and Section 11B(3), as amended, was held applicable to pending matters notwithstanding prior orders or judgments. In view of that settled position, the objection based on unjust enrichment could not be ignored. At the same time, since the appellants contended that this ground had not been specifically raised and that they should be allowed to establish whether the duty burden had been passed on to customers, fairness required an opportunity before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to lead evidence on that question.

Conclusion: The refund claims were not finally allowed, but the matters were remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration of refund eligibility under the amended law after giving the appellants an opportunity to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on.

---