Refund of duty paid under a set-aside assessment is immediate, but only after crossing the unjust enrichment bar.

Amounts paid under an assessment order that is later set aside and remanded for de novo consideration are refundable without waiting for completion of the fresh proceedings, because the original demand no longer survives. The pendency of de novo proceedings does not keep the set-aside assessment alive for refund purposes. However, the refund remains subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment, so payment can be released only after that requirement is satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty paid pursuant to an assessment order, which was later set aside and remanded for de novo consideration, was refundable immediately despite pendency of the de novo proceedings, and whether such refund remained subject to the bar of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The amount had been paid pursuant to an assessment order that ceased to survive once the appellate authority set it aside and directed de novo proceedings. In such a situation, the pending de novo exercise did not keep the original demand alive, and the payer was entitled to seek refund of the amount paid under the non-existing order. The Tribunal further noted that refund claims under the central excise law are nevertheless governed by the principle of unjust enrichment, and refund can be granted only after that bar is crossed.

Conclusion: Refund was admissible notwithstanding pendency of de novo proceedings, but it remained subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the refund order was sustained with the qualification that unjust enrichment must be satisfied before payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts paid under an assessment order that has been set aside are refundable without awaiting de novo proceedings, though the refund is subject to the statutory doctrine of unjust enrichment.

---