Unjust enrichment in refund claims applies even after payment, with remand required to test whether duty was passed on.

The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refund claims even where the refund has already been sanctioned and paid. The legal position was taken from Supreme Court authority, and the applicability of the doctrine was accepted. However, the factual question of whether the duty incidence had in fact been passed on to customers still required examination on evidence. The matter was therefore remitted to the original authority for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, so that the passing-on issue could be determined on the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refund cases where the refund has already been sanctioned and paid, and whether the matter should be remanded for examination of whether the duty burden was passed on to customers.

Analysis: The appeal was governed by the Supreme Court decisions recognising that unjust enrichment applies even where refund has already been made. The finding on applicability of the doctrine was accepted, but the assessee was entitled to have the factual question examined on evidence as to whether the duty incidence had in fact been passed on. The proper course was therefore to remit the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The doctrine of unjust enrichment was held applicable, and the impugned order was set aside with remand for fresh adjudication on the evidence regarding passing on of duty incidence.

---