Successful appeal on refund claims not time-barred under Section 11B; unjust enrichment doctrine inapplicable.

The appeal was successful as the court held that the refund claims were not time-barred under Section 11B since the final decision on re-fixation was dated 16-11-2000. The court found that the duty burden was not passed on to customers based on supporting documents provided by the appellant, including a notarized affidavit and Chartered Accountant's certificate. As a result, the unjust enrichment doctrine did not apply, and the lower authority's rejection of the refund claims was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claims under Section 11B on grounds of time bar and unjust enrichment.

Analysis:
1. Time Bar Issue:
The appellant company filed three refund claims for excess duty paid after the re-fixation of the Annual Capacity of Production. The lower authority rejected the claims as time-barred. However, the Commissioner's final decision on the re-fixation was dated 16-11-2000. The appellant had paid duty under protest until this final decision. The judge held that the matter attained finality only after the Commissioner's letter dated 16-11-2000, making this the relevant date for refund under Section 11B. Thus, the claims were filed within the time limit under Section 11AB.

2. Unjust Enrichment Issue:
The lower authority also rejected the refund claims on the grounds of unjust enrichment, stating that the appellant had not proven that the duty amount was not passed on to customers. However, upon examination of clearance documents like invoices and delivery challans, it was evident that no excise duty was separately collected from customers. The appellant provided supporting documents such as a notarized affidavit, Chartered Accountant's certificate, and certified balance sheet to prove no duty was collected from customers. The judge referred to Supreme Court decisions, stating that if a sworn affidavit confirms that the duty burden was not passed on to the purchaser, unjust enrichment does not apply. Therefore, in the present case, unjust enrichment was deemed inapplicable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

---