Refund claims under central excise must satisfy limitation and unjust enrichment, even when arising from an appellate order.

A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was held to fail on both limitation and unjust enrichment. The payment was not shown to have been made under the prescribed protest procedure, and it was not made under a court-directed interim order; the claim was also filed beyond the one-year limitation period. The later Finance Act amendment did not cure the delay. On unjust enrichment, the assessee did not rebut the statutory presumption, as the duty was not shown as receivable in the books and mere uniform pricing did not prove that the burden was not passed on. Refund was therefore not admissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim was barred by limitation and could be treated as payment under protest; and (ii) whether the refund was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): whether the refund claim was barred by limitation and could be treated as payment under protest

Analysis: The statutory scheme required payment under protest to be made in the manner prescribed. The payment made by the assessee during the dispute was not shown to have followed that procedure, and it was not a payment made pursuant to any court order during the pendency of proceedings. The refund claim was also filed beyond one year from the relevant date under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The later amendment by Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2007 did not assist the assessee, because the claim was still filed beyond the permissible period even on the basis of the appellate decision that gave rise to the refund.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not entitled to be treated as payment under protest and was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): whether the refund was hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment

Analysis: Refund under Section 11B remains subject to unjust enrichment even where the refund arises from a successful appeal. The assessee did not show the refund amount as receivable in its books, which indicated that the duty had been treated as expenditure. Mere sale at government-determined or uniform prices did not establish that the duty burden had not been passed on. In the absence of evidence rebutting the statutory presumption, the assessee failed to establish that it had borne the incidence of duty.

Conclusion: The refund was barred by unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to refund, and the Revenue's objection succeeded on both limitation and unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, including one arising from an appellate order, must satisfy the statutory limitation and the bar of unjust enrichment, and payment under protest is recognised only when the prescribed procedure is followed or the payment is made under a court-directed interim order.

---