Unjustified remand on refund and limitation rejected after sanction and payment, with no timely recovery notice issued.

A further remand on limitation and unjust enrichment was found unwarranted where the refund had already been reconsidered, sanctioned and paid after an earlier remand. The tribunal noted that the department had not issued any recovery notice for the alleged erroneous refund within the prescribed time, and that sending the matter back again would only prolong a dispute pending for more than two decades. The remand was not sustained, the appeal was allowed, and the refund position remained affirmed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand order directing fresh consideration on limitation and unjust enrichment was warranted when the refund had already been sanctioned and paid, and no recovery notice had been issued.

Analysis: The dispute had remained pending for more than two decades. The refund claim had already been reconsidered and sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner pursuant to the earlier remand, and the amount had been paid. The impugned order merely remanded the matter again instead of finally deciding the controversy. It was also noted that the department had not issued any notice for recovery of alleged erroneous refund within the prescribed time, and in the circumstances a further remand would only prolong a stale dispute without serving any practical purpose.

Conclusion: The remand was not sustained and the appeal was allowed, with the refund position effectively standing affirmed in favour of the assessee.

---