Central excise refund claims fail when limitation is exceeded and unjust enrichment is not disproved.

Refund claims under central excise law were held time-barred because the applications related to a period long before filing, and the protest letter covered post-manufacturing expenses rather than the disputed deduction of metal container costs, so it did not save limitation. The refund also failed on unjust enrichment because the claimant did not dispute that finding and produced no evidence that the duty burden had not been passed on. The record did not show that the refund amount had been borne by the claimant. The stated principle is that a refund is not maintainable when filed beyond limitation and when the claimant cannot prove non-passing of duty incidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claims were barred by limitation; (ii) whether the refund was hit by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the refund claims were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claims related to a period long prior to the dates on which refund applications were filed. The protest letter relied upon by the appellant related to post-manufacturing expenses and not to the deduction of the cost of metal containers from the assessable value. It could not, therefore, be treated as a protest on the disputed issue so as to save limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claims were barred by limitation.

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

Analysis: The appellant did not dispute the finding on unjust enrichment and did not place any evidence to show that the duty incidence had not been passed on. The record did not establish that the amount claimed as refund had been borne by the appellant.

Conclusion: The refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The refund claims failed on both limitation and unjust enrichment, and the appeals were not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under central excise law is not maintainable when it is filed beyond the prescribed limitation and the claimant fails to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on.

---