Refund under protest and writ relief: consequential duty refund cannot be denied on limitation or procedural grounds.

Writ jurisdiction may be used to secure consequential refund where a refund rejection would defeat the effect of an adjudication order, and the existence of an alternative statutory appeal does not by itself bar Article 226 relief. Payment made under protest or under compulsion is treated as outside the normal six-month limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, and a refund arising from an adjudication order cannot be defeated on limitation or procedural grounds such as Rule 233B. Where the incidence of duty has not been passed on, refund remains legally payable, with interest where directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition for refund was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal, and (ii) whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or was saved as payment made under protest.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition for refund was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal.

Analysis: The refund rejection order was directly challenged in writ jurisdiction. The Court found that where refund is claimed as consequential relief and the statutory authority has rejected it on a ground that would nullify the effect of the adjudication order, the existence of an appellate remedy does not by itself bar exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court relied on the principle that consequential refund of money realised without authority of law can be directed under Article 226 in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the Court could examine the refund rejection order.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or was saved as payment made under protest.

Analysis: The amount had been paid pursuant to a demand raised under threat and compulsion, and the Court treated it as payment under protest. On that footing, the six-month limitation in Section 11B(1) did not apply. The Court further held that once the adjudication order itself directed refund of the excess amount, the refund claim arose as a substantive consequence of that order and could not be defeated by invoking Rule 233B or by treating the claim as time-barred. The Court also accepted that the incidence of duty had not been passed on.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred and the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess amount.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on the refund claim, and the respondents were directed to refund the excess duty amount with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid under protest or under compulsion and an adjudication order grants refund of the excess amount, the refund cannot be denied on limitation or procedural grounds under Section 11B or Rule 233B, and writ jurisdiction may be exercised to secure consequential refund in an appropriate case.

---