Refund claims on consequential orders are not time-barred for want of protest, but unjust enrichment must still be examined.

A refund claim arising from a consequential Tribunal order was not barred by limitation merely because the duty was not paid under protest; the time-bar objection failed. However, sanction of the refund still required scrutiny of unjust enrichment under Section 11B, and the adjudicating authority had to examine that issue before granting relief. The matter was therefore remanded for reconsideration on unjust enrichment while rejecting the limitation objection.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation on the ground that duty was not paid under protest. (ii) Whether the claim for refund required examination on the principle of unjust enrichment under Section 11B.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation on the ground that duty was not paid under protest.

Analysis: The refund was claimed in consequence of the Tribunal's earlier order, and the question of limitation did not arise on the facts presented before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by time; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for refund required examination on the principle of unjust enrichment under Section 11B.

Analysis: The applicability of unjust enrichment under Section 11B required scrutiny by the adjudicating authority before sanctioning the refund, and the matter could not be finally granted without such examination.

Conclusion: The issue of unjust enrichment had to be examined by the adjudicating authority; this issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the refund claim was remanded for reconsideration of unjust enrichment, while the plea of time bar was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim arising from a consequential order is not barred merely because duty was not paid under protest, but sanction of refund remains subject to examination of unjust enrichment under the governing refund provision.

---