Excise duty refund under protest remains subject to statutory refund limits and unjust enrichment where no provisional assessment exists.

Refund of excise duty paid under protest remained subject to section 11B, because no provisional assessment under rule 9B was shown. The Court found no request for provisional assessment, no order treating the duty as provisional, and no required bond, so the claim could not bypass the statutory refund mechanism. It also rejected reliance on the earlier Sinkhai Synthetics view, following Allied Photographics on the distinction between payment under protest and refund on finalisation of provisional assessment. As the duty burden had been passed on to customers, unjust enrichment applied and the amount was correctly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund rather than refunded directly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of excise duty paid under protest, and whether the claim could escape the bar of section 11B on the footing that the assessment was provisional and unjust enrichment did not apply.

Analysis: The petitioner relied on an earlier writ order and on the contention that the duty remained provisional until the classification dispute was finally decided, while the revenue maintained that no provisional assessment under rule 9B had ever been made and that the duty was only paid under protest. The Court held that section 11B, as amended, governs refund claims notwithstanding any contrary judicial direction, and that refund can be granted only in the manner provided by that provision. The Court further held that there was no material to show compliance with rule 9B, no request or order for provisional assessment, and no execution of the required bond. The reliance on the earlier decision in Sinkhai Synthetics was rejected because Allied Photographics had held that payment under protest is distinct from refund on finalisation of provisional assessment and that Sinkhai Synthetics was per incuriam. Since the adjudicating authority had recorded that the duty burden had been passed on to customers, the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied.

Conclusion: The refund claim was rightly subjected to section 11B and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and the petitioner was not entitled to direct refund.

---