Refund of duty pre-deposit needs verification beyond the original challan, with limitation and unjust enrichment examined on remand.

Refund of a duty pre-deposit could not be rejected merely because the original TR 6 Challan was unavailable where correspondence and other record showed the deposit and the department had not independently verified payment. The claim was treated as not time barred because limitation for refund of a pre-deposit runs from final settlement of the dispute, not from the original date of payment. On unjust enrichment, the record did not conclusively show that the duty burden had been passed on, particularly where the payment was made during litigation and the price was under an administered mechanism. The matter was remanded for fresh verification on payment, limitation, and unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim could be rejected merely because the original TR 6 Challan was not produced. (ii) Whether the refund claim was time barred. (iii) Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim could be rejected merely because the original TR 6 Challan was not produced.

Analysis: The evidence on record showed repeated correspondence acknowledging the duty deposit of Rs. 49 crores. The absence of the original challan could not, by itself, justify rejection of refund when the department had not verified the payment from its own accounts or through other available modes of verification. The matter required proper factual verification before deciding the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected solely for want of the original TR 6 Challan and required reconsideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was time barred.

Analysis: The duty had been paid as pre-deposit in the course of the dispute and became refundable only after the demand was finally set aside. The refund application was filed after the dispute was settled, and the limitation could not be computed from the earlier date of payment in the manner suggested by the Revenue. The claim was therefore within time on the settled principle governing refunds of pre-deposit amounts.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time barred.

Issue (iii): Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The duty was not paid at the time of clearance but much later as a pre-deposit during litigation. There was no material showing that the incidence of duty had been passed on to buyers, and the price was fixed under the administered price mechanism. The certificate furnished by the appellant was not conclusive by itself, but the lower authorities had not carried out adequate verification on this aspect, so the issue required fresh examination.

Conclusion: The plea of unjust enrichment was not conclusively established and required re-verification.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication so that the refund claim could be decided after proper verification of payment, limitation, and unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be denied solely for absence of the original duty-payment challan where other material indicates payment and the department has not independently verified the deposit, and refund of a pre-deposit becomes relevant only after the underlying dispute is finally settled.

---