Unjust enrichment does not bar refund of duty paid under protest, and credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside.

Duty paid under protest was held not to attract the bar of unjust enrichment, so refund claims arising from such payments could not be denied on that ground. The direction to credit the refundable amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund was therefore unsustainable, and the refunds were allowed in favour of the appellants.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund claims for excise duty paid under protest were barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The original duty payments in both matters were made under protest. The governing rule applied was that the bar of unjust enrichment does not operate where duty has been paid under protest, and refunds arising from such payments cannot be denied on that ground. On that basis, the orders directing credit of the refundable amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The refund claims were not hit by unjust enrichment and were allowed in favour of the appellants.

---