Central excise refund claim failed for want of limitation compliance, proper protest endorsement, and proof of no unjust enrichment.

A central excise refund claim was not maintainable because the claimant failed to satisfy both limitation and the prescribed protest procedure. Under Rule 223B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, endorsement in the personal ledger account alone was insufficient; the protest also had to be reflected on the relevant gate passes and removal documents. The scheme of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment required proof that the duty burden had not been passed on. As the claim was time-barred for the major part and the procedural protest requirements were not fully met, the refund was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation and whether compliance with the prescribed protest endorsement requirements was necessary for refund entitlement.

Analysis: The refund claim covered a long period, but only a limited segment carried the required protest endorsement. Under Rule 223B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, endorsement in the personal ledger account alone was insufficient, and the prescribed protest had also to appear on the relevant gate passes and removal documents. In light of the law relating to unjust enrichment and the scheme of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the claimant had to establish both that the claim was within time and that the burden had not been passed on. The Tribunal's finding that the claim remained barred for the major part and that the procedural requirement was not fully satisfied disclosed no error.

Conclusion: The claim for refund was not sustainable and the answer was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the central excise law is not maintainable unless the claimant satisfies the limitation requirements and complies with the prescribed protest procedure, including proof that the duty burden was not passed on.

---