Refund under protest is maintainable despite pending remand, but unjust enrichment must still be examined before sanction.

Duty paid under protest does not make a refund claim premature merely because related demand proceedings remain pending after remand, where no confirmed duty demand is outstanding; the refund claim was therefore maintainable. However, refund cannot be sanctioned without a factual finding on unjust enrichment, namely whether the duty burden was passed on to consumers; that issue required determination by the adjudicating authority. The matter was remanded for that limited inquiry before any final grant of refund.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was premature when the duty demand proceedings had not been finally adjudicated after remand. (ii) Whether the refund could be granted without examining the principle of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was premature when the duty demand proceedings had not been finally adjudicated after remand.

Analysis: The duty had been deposited under protest, and no confirmed duty demand was outstanding against the respondents. The pending adjudication after remand did not, by itself, bar consideration of the refund claim, since the department had not yet sustained the demand.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not premature.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund could be granted without examining the principle of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The appellate authority had not examined whether the burden of duty had been passed on to the ultimate consumers. Refund could be allowed only if it was not hit by unjust enrichment, and that factual issue required determination by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The matter had to be remanded for examination of unjust enrichment before granting refund.

Final Conclusion: The order was modified by upholding the maintainability of the refund claim, but the matter was sent back for a limited factual inquiry before final grant of refund.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of duty paid under protest is not premature merely because related demand proceedings remain pending after remand, but the refund cannot be sanctioned unless the authority determines that its incidence was not passed on so as to avoid unjust enrichment.

---