Cross-enactment set-off and unjust enrichment govern customs refunds when duty incidence is not proved to remain with the claimant.

Recovery provisions allowing deduction of money owing to a defaulter may operate across different fiscal enactments, so excise dues could be adjusted against a customs refund where the officer had control of the amount. In refund claims under the Customs Act, the claimant must affirmatively prove that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers; a bare assumption or a finding unsupported by evidence is insufficient. The unjust enrichment objection therefore remains available unless the claimant discharges that burden, and the refund claim may require fresh determination on that basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether dues arising under the Central Excise law could be adjusted against refund payable in a customs matter; (ii) Whether the refund claim could be denied or reduced on the ground of unjust enrichment and failure to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on.

Issue (i): Whether dues arising under the Central Excise law could be adjusted against refund payable in a customs matter.

Analysis: Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 142(1)(a) of the Customs Act both authorize deduction of sums payable from money owing to the defaulter and do not confine recovery to dues arising only under the same enactment. The controlling officer's power to retain or deduct money in his hands is not defeated merely because the recoverable dues arise under a different fiscal statute.

Conclusion: The adjustment of excise dues against the customs refund was permissible, and the Collector (Appeals) was wrong in holding otherwise.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim could be denied or reduced on the ground of unjust enrichment and failure to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on.

Analysis: In a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, the claimant bears the burden of showing that the duty incidence has not been passed on to buyers. The assumption that the bunkers were not sold and that the burden was retained by the importer was not supported by evidence. The finding based on mistake of law did not, by itself, establish absence of passing on of duty incidence.

Conclusion: The finding that unjust enrichment did not apply was unsustainable, and the refund issue had to be reconsidered afresh.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the legal issues raised, the contrary findings were set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh determination of the refund claim in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery provisions that authorize deduction from money owing to a defaulter can operate across different fiscal enactments if the officer has control of the amount, and in a refund claim the claimant must affirmatively prove that the duty burden was not passed on.

---