SAD refund limitation and unjust enrichment: timely filing survives provisional assessment, but merits still require fresh scrutiny.

A claim for refund of Special Additional Duty is not time-barred merely because the bills of entry were assessed provisionally and the department earlier returned the claim as premature, where the claim was in fact filed within one year from payment of SAD. The limitation period is reckoned from payment, and the earlier non-entertainment of the claim does not negate timely filing. However, refund entitlement cannot be finally granted without examining unjust enrichment. The matter therefore required fresh adjudication on merits, including whether the claimant had passed on the duty burden.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty was within time when the bills of entry were assessed provisionally and the claim had earlier been returned as premature; (ii) whether the refund claim could be finally allowed without examination of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty was within time when the bills of entry were assessed provisionally and the claim had earlier been returned as premature.

Analysis: The refund was filed within the statutory time reckoned from payment of SAD, but it had first been returned by the department as premature because the assessments were provisional. The Board circular on the subject also recognised the position that, even in cases of provisional assessment, the refund claim has to be filed within one year from the date of payment of SAD. In these circumstances, the earlier presentation of the claim could not be ignored merely because it was not entertained on the ground of prematurity.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): whether the refund claim could be finally allowed without examination of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The rejection order proceeded only on limitation, and the authority below had not examined whether the claimant had passed the test of unjust enrichment. Since that issue goes to the entitlement to refund on merits, it required adjudication by the original authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on unjust enrichment and merits.

Final Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, but the refund claim was not finally adjudicated and was sent back for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim filed within the prescribed period cannot be treated as time-barred merely because it was earlier returned as premature on the ground of provisional assessment, but entitlement to refund must still be tested on merits including unjust enrichment.

---