Refund limitation and unjust enrichment in excise law turn on protest payment, final refixation, and proof that duty was not passed on.

Refund limitation under excise law was computed from the date on which the annual production capacity was finally refixed, because duty had been paid under protest and the liability attained finality only on that later order. On that basis, the refund claims were held to be within time. The bar of unjust enrichment was also rejected because the records did not show separate recovery of duty from customers, and the assessee supported its claim with commercial invoices, an affidavit, a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and balance-sheet material showing that the duty had not been passed on. The refund order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under the excise refund provisions, and (ii) whether the refund was hit by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the refund claims were barred by limitation under the excise refund provisions

Analysis: The excess duty arose because the annual capacity of production was later refixed by the Commissioner, and the duty had been paid under protest pending final determination. The matter attained finality only on the date of refixation, and that date was treated as the relevant date for computing limitation for refund. On that basis, the refund claims were held to have been filed within time.

Conclusion: The refund claims were not time-barred.

Issue (ii): whether the refund was hit by unjust enrichment

Analysis: The clearance documents and invoices did not show any separate recovery of excise duty from customers. The appellant also produced supporting commercial invoices, an affidavit stating that no duty had been passed on, a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and balance-sheet material. In these circumstances, the statutory presumption of passing on the duty was treated as rebutted.

Conclusion: The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The refund order was set aside and the assessee was held entitled to refund with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid under protest and the liability becomes final only on a later refixation order, that later date is the relevant date for refund limitation; and the presumption against refund under unjust enrichment is rebutted by clear evidence that the duty was not passed on to customers.

---