Refund of excise duty collected without authority of law is not barred by Rule 11, delay, or unjust enrichment.

Excise duty collected without authority of law is treated as refundable in writ jurisdiction because Article 265 prohibits tax collection without legal sanction. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules governs statutory refund claims for duty paid by mistake, but it does not control a claim based on absence of authority to levy the duty at all. Delay and laches may matter in writ proceedings, but limitation is not applied rigidly where the assessee acted promptly after clarification of the legal position. A defence of unjust enrichment does not, by itself, defeat restitution of illegal tax where the facts support refund.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether excess excise duty collected without authority of law could be refused refund on the ground that the claim did not fall within Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules and whether the writ petition was barred by delay or limitation; (ii) whether refund could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether excess excise duty collected without authority of law could be refused refund on the ground that the claim did not fall within Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules and whether the writ petition was barred by delay or limitation.

Analysis: Article 265 forbids levy or collection of tax except by authority of law, and where duty has been collected without such authority the State is under a legal obligation to restore it. Rule 11 governs refunds in cases of duty paid through mistake or inadvertence under the statutory refund machinery, but it does not govern a claim founded on want of authority to levy at all. In writ jurisdiction, limitation is not rigidly governed by the Limitation Act, though delay and laches remain relevant. On the facts, the assessee moved promptly after the legal position was clarified and the intervening departmental proceedings, including appeals and correspondence culminating in the proposed review, explained the interval before the writ petition.

Conclusion: the claim was not barred by Rule 11, and the writ petition was not liable to be rejected for delay or limitation.

Issue (ii): whether refund could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: A claim for restitution of duty collected without authority of law is not defeated merely because the assessee may have recovered part of the burden in its pricing structure. The governing principle is that illegal tax cannot be retained by the State on a defence of possible passing on of burden, and the cited precedents rejecting refund on special facts did not lay down a universal bar. The assessee's integrated pricing and the character of the duty collection did not establish a sufficient basis to refuse restitution.

Conclusion: refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: the appeal succeeded and the assessee was entitled to refund of the excess excise duty collected without authority of law.

Ratio Decidendi: tax collected without authority of law is refundable in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the inapplicability of the ordinary refund rule, and delay or alleged passing on of burden does not by itself defeat restitution where the facts justify relief.

---