Refund admissibility must be decided before unjust enrichment, with remand ordered for fresh consideration and speaking order.

A refund claim must be examined first for admissibility; the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies only after refund is otherwise found admissible, to decide whether the amount is paid to the claimant or credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Because the adjudicating authority had not decided admissibility and had relied mainly on the gate pass, the evidence on passing of duty incidence required reconsideration. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and a speaking order after personal hearing, with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to decide refund admissibility first and then test unjust enrichment if necessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment without first deciding its admissibility, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The refund claim must first be examined on admissibility. The doctrine of unjust enrichment becomes relevant only after refund is found otherwise admissible, for deciding whether the refundable amount is to be paid to the claimant or credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. As the adjudicating authority had not decided admissibility and had relied mainly on the gate pass, the matter required reconsideration of the evidence regarding passing on of duty incidence and a fresh speaking order after personal hearing.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to decide refund admissibility first and, if admissible, to examine unjust enrichment on the evidence produced.

---