Unjust Enrichment and Excise Refunds: duty paid under protest was treated as refundable, while a balance claim was remanded for verification.

Refunds of central excise duty paid under protest or on finalisation of provisional assessment are not automatically barred by unjust enrichment; on the facts stated, the majority treated the larger refund as admissible because the department's invoice-based objection was insufficient to defeat the claim. The balance refund required factual verification, as the records and supporting documents had not been adequately examined, so that portion was remanded for de novo consideration. The document therefore states a mixed outcome, with substantial refund relief sustained and the remaining claim sent back for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund of Rs. 88,26,360 was barred by unjust enrichment under the refund provisions applicable to central excise duty paid under protest or pursuant to provisional assessment; (ii) whether the remaining refund claim of Rs. 16,19,617 required fresh verification and reconsideration.

Issue (i): whether the refund of Rs. 88,26,360 was barred by unjust enrichment under the refund provisions applicable to central excise duty paid under protest or pursuant to provisional assessment.

Analysis: The refund arose from duty paid after the goods had been cleared, in the context of a provisional assessment and a dispute finally settled in the assessee's favour. The majority held that the payment was made under protest and that refunds arising from such payments were not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The department's reliance on invoices and general presumptions was not accepted as sufficient to defeat the refund on these facts.

Conclusion: The refund of Rs. 88,26,360 was not barred by unjust enrichment and was held admissible in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the remaining refund claim of Rs. 16,19,617 required fresh verification and reconsideration.

Analysis: The majority found that the records and documents concerning this portion of the claim were not adequately examined. Since part of the amount related to a claim that required factual verification, the proper course was to direct reconsideration by the appellate authority after examining the relevant documents and records.

Conclusion: The claim for Rs. 16,19,617 was remanded for de novo consideration and verification.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on the main refund amount, while the assessee's remaining claim was sent back for fresh adjudication, resulting in a mixed outcome with refund relief substantially sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Refunds arising from duty paid under protest or on finalisation of provisional assessment are not automatically barred by unjust enrichment, and disputed factual claims may be remanded for verification of records before final grant of refund.

---