Pre-deposit under Section 35F is under protest; refund allowed, mandatory show cause notice under Section 11A required before recovery

The HC held that the pre-deposit made under Section 35F during investigation is a deposit under protest, and principles of unjust enrichment do not apply; thus, refund was allowed. The Tribunal correctly found that a show cause notice under Section 11A is mandatory before recovery proceedings under Section 35E(2). Since no such notice was issued, recovery was not permissible. The Court upheld the Tribunal's distinction of prior case law and emphasized the binding nature of the Board's circular mandating issuance of show cause notices within six months. The decision was against the revenue on both the refund and recovery issues.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the principle of unjust enrichment applies to deposits made under protest during investigation pending adjudication proceedings.Whether recovery of erroneously refunded amounts can be effected by filing an appeal under Section 35-E of the Central Excise Act without issuance of a show cause notice under Section 11A.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

On the issue of unjust enrichment, the Court held that deposits made during the pendency of adjudication or investigation are "in the nature of deposit made under protest" and therefore, "the principles of unjust enrichment does not apply".Regarding recovery of erroneous refunds, the Court held that "issuance of show cause notice is mandatory under Section 11A of the Act" before proceeding with recovery under Section 35-E, and without such notice, recovery cannot be made despite the appeal being filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 35-E.

RATIONALE:

The Court relied on a consistent line of precedent, including the Supreme Court decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd., and various High Court judgments affirming that deposits made during investigation are deposits under protest, exempting them from the unjust enrichment doctrine.For recovery procedures, the Court examined Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, which mandates the issuance of a show cause notice within a prescribed limitation period (six months prior to amendment) before recovery of duties or erroneous refunds.The Court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Asian Paints (India) Ltd., noting that it did not address the mandatory nature of the show cause notice under Section 11A, and upheld the Tribunal's interpretation that such notice is a prerequisite for recovery.The Court further emphasized the binding nature of the Board's Circular No.423/56/98-CX dated 22.9.1998, which clarifies that timely demands must be raised through show cause notices within the limitation period under Section 11A.

---