Finality of appellate findings and payment under protest protected the refund claim from unjust enrichment and limitation objections.

An earlier appellate determination that unjust enrichment did not apply could not be reopened through a fresh show cause notice, because the issue had attained finality and the later contrary proceedings were without jurisdiction. The refund rejection on that ground was therefore unsustainable. The claim was also not hit by limitation, as the duty was paid during an ongoing classification dispute and the assessee had expressly stated that payment was under protest. On that basis, the refund could not be denied as time-barred, and the rejection on limitation was likewise set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim could be rejected again on the ground of unjust enrichment after that issue had already been finally decided in the assessee's favour in earlier appellate proceedings. (ii) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation, or was saved as duty paid under protest.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim could be rejected again on the ground of unjust enrichment after that issue had already been finally decided in the assessee's favour in earlier appellate proceedings.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had expressly held that unjust enrichment was not applicable and the Revenue did not challenge that order. Once that decision attained finality, the same issue could not be reopened by issuing another show cause notice and taking a contrary stand in subsequent proceedings. The later proceedings on unjust enrichment were therefore without jurisdiction and could not override the final earlier appellate determination.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation, or was saved as duty paid under protest.

Analysis: The refund arose from a classification dispute which the assessee had continuously contested. The assessee had also declared in the classification list that duty would be paid under protest. In such circumstances, the payment was treated as payment under protest, and the refund could not be defeated on limitation grounds.

Conclusion: The refund was not barred by limitation and this ground of rejection was also unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order rejecting refund on unjust enrichment and limitation was set aside, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An issue finally decided in earlier appellate proceedings cannot be reopened by a fresh show cause notice, and duty paid during a live classification dispute with an express protest is to be treated as payment under protest for refund purposes.

---