Retrospective SSI exemption supports excise refund and interest, while protest payment and no unjust enrichment defeat limitation objections.

Refund claims under central excise are not defeated where duty was paid under protest and the protest documentation is procedurally imperfect, because such defect does not by itself make the claim time-barred under section 11B. Unjust enrichment also does not apply where commercial records and departmental verification show that the excise duty incidence was not passed on to customers. Where SSI registration is granted retrospectively, the exemption operates retrospectively as well, supporting refund and interest under section 11BB.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for want of compliance with the protest procedure under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the duty had been passed on to the customers; and (iii) whether the assessee was entitled to refund with interest on the basis of retrospective grant of SSI registration.

Issue (i): whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for want of compliance with the protest procedure under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The duty payments were treated as made under protest on the strength of the clearance documents, and the absence of a departmental acknowledgement of the protest letter was held to be a procedural defect. The substantive nature of the claim was not defeated merely because the Department did not have the relevant copies of the protest documents. The refund was therefore not treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the claim was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): whether the refund was barred by unjust enrichment on the ground that the duty had been passed on to the customers.

Analysis: The contracts and commercial records were examined to verify whether the excise duty element had been included in the price charged. The documents indicated only the basic price plus other levies, with no reference to excise duty being passed on. A departmental verification also concluded that the duty incidence had not been transferred to customers.

Conclusion: The unjust enrichment objection was rejected and the assessee was found to have borne the duty burden itself.

Issue (iii): whether the assessee was entitled to refund with interest on the basis of retrospective grant of SSI registration.

Analysis: The SSI certificate was granted retrospectively, and the exemption consequence was treated as operating retrospectively as well. Since the assessee had been denied the benefit only because the certificate was initially unavailable, the refund followed from the retrospective availability of the exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to refund along with interest under section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the refund order failed, and the refund with interest in favour of the assessee stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural non-compliance cannot defeat a refund claim where duty was paid under protest, the duty incidence was not passed on, and the underlying exemption applies retrospectively.

---