Payment under protest and refund adjustment principles govern limitation, unjust enrichment, and cross-division recovery of duty dues.

A clear endorsement of payment under protest on duty-paying challans was treated as substantial compliance with Rule 233B, so the refund claims could not be rejected merely as time-barred. The unjust enrichment objection depended on whether the duty had been passed on; where the accounting treatment showed the duty as receivable, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in light of the earlier Bench view. Adjustment of a refund against dues confirmed in another Division was upheld because Section 11 permits recovery from money owing to the same assessee under departmental control.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether endorsement of "UNDER PROTEST" on TR-6 challans amounted to compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to exclude the bar of limitation on refund claims; (ii) Whether refund claims of the assessee were hit by unjust enrichment; (iii) Whether the Revenue could adjust a refund granted to the assessee in one Division against dues confirmed in another Division under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether endorsement of "UNDER PROTEST" on TR-6 challans amounted to compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 so as to exclude the bar of limitation on refund claims.

Analysis: The endorsement on the duty-paying challans was treated as substantive proof of protest. The requirement under Rule 233B was held not to demand a narrow or hypertechnical compliance, and the protest need not be particularised in a separate formal letter where the payment documents themselves clearly record protest.

Conclusion: The assessee's payment under protest was held to be in substantial compliance with Rule 233B, and the refund claims could not be rejected merely as time-barred on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether refund claims of the assessee were hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The matter was linked to the assessee's accounting treatment of duty paid on PCC poles and to an earlier decision of the same Bench holding that where such duty was shown as receivable and not passed on to consumers, the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply. For the appeals where refund had been rejected on unjust enrichment, the original authorities were required to reconsider the issue in the light of that earlier decision and pass fresh speaking orders.

Conclusion: The issue of unjust enrichment was remitted for fresh consideration in the light of the earlier binding order of the Bench.

Issue (iii): Whether the Revenue could adjust a refund granted to the assessee in one Division against dues confirmed in another Division under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11 was held to permit recovery of duty due from "the person" by deduction from money owing to that person under the department's control. Since the liable person was the assessee itself and not a separate unit within the Commissionerate, the statute did not support the assessee's objection to adjustment across Divisions.

Conclusion: The Revenue's adjustment was upheld and the Revenue appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the protest and limitation aspect, the unjust enrichment question was sent back for fresh adjudication, and the Revenue succeeded on the legality of adjustment under Section 11.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear endorsement of payment under protest on the duty-paying document can constitute substantial compliance with Rule 233B, and Section 11 permits recovery of dues by appropriation from refund payable to the same assessee.

---